ACRP Report 14 Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices For Stormwater Management Systems, 2nd Edition (2020)

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25788 SHARE

   
Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater

Management Systems, second edition (2020)
DETAILS
76 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48122-9 | DOI 10.17226/25788
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Dean Mericas, Tim Astfalk, Rob Sims, Mead & Hunt, Inc., Devon Seal, Tim Arendt,
Gresham Smith, Chuck Pace, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., Eric
Cahoon, Woolpert, and Karen Miller, Design2Train LLC; Airport Cooperative
Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of
FIND RELATED TITLES Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Deicing

Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Systems, second
edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25788.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Systems, second edition
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 14

Deicing Planning Guidelines
and Practices for Stormwater
Management Systems
Second Edition
Dean Mericas
Tim Astfalk
Rob Sims
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Austin, TX
Devon Seal
Tim Arendt
Gresham Smith
Columbus, OH
Chuck Pace
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
Hunt Valley, MD
Eric Cahoon
Woolpert
Arlington, VA
Karen Miller
Design2Train LLC
The Woodlands, TX
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Environment
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 14, SECOND EDITION
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 02-71
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for ISBN 978-0-309-48122-9
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2020933523
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate
new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into
the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- published or copyrighted material used herein.
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal,
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems. NOTICE
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports program sponsors.
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa-
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State
Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB they are considered essential to the object of the report.
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the
FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi-
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili-
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published research reports of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Transportation Research Board
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, http://www.national-academies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 14, SECOND EDITION

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Joseph D. Navarrete, Senior Program Officer
Hana Vagnerova, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Margaret B. Hagood, Senior Editor
ACRP PROJECT 02-71 PANEL

Field of Environment
Kevin A. Gurchak, Allegheny County (PA) Airport Authority–Pittsburgh International Airport,
Pittsburgh, PA (Chair)
Phil Argiroff, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Lansing, MI
Devon Cancilla, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO
Kimberly Engle, Cryotech Deicing Technology, Fort Madison, IA
Michael J. Parletta, The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey—LaGuardia Airport, Flushing, NY
Asciatu J. Whiteside, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, DFW Airport, TX
Michael Lamprecht, FAA Liaison
Melinda Z. Pagliarello, Airports Council International–North America Liaison
Tim A. Pohle, Airlines for America Liaison
Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ACRP Project 02-71 team and principal authors of this report consisted of Dean Mericas, Ph.D.,
Principal Investigator, Tim Astfalk, PE, and Rob Sims, Mead & Hunt, Inc.; Devon Seal, PE, and
Tim Arendt, PE, Gresham Smith; Chuck Pace, PE, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.;
Eric Cahoon, Woolpert; and Karen Miller, M.Ed., Design2Train. The project team would like to thank
the members of the project panel for providing the opportunity to conduct this important research. We
would also like to thank all those who provided valuable feedback on the draft research products, and
the following individuals who were especially generous with their time in participating in on-site field
testing and review of the Deicing Management Decision Support Tool: Tim O’Donnell and Tyler Miller
at South Bend International Airport; Chris Sieklucki at MBS International Airport; and Mike Cross at
Dayton International Airport.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorse-
ment by the U.S. government.

FOREWORD
By Joseph D. Navarrete
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Research Report 14: Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater
Management Systems, Second Edition, provides practical technical guidance for the cost-
effective control of runoff from aircraft and airfield deicing and anti-icing operations. This
second edition reflects the latest advancements in the state of practice. The report will be of
particular interest to airport industry practitioners, including airport and aircraft operators,
consultants, and regulators.
ACRP Report 14 has become a standard reference for the management of airport
deicing runoff, addressing a wide array of practices for the cost-effective control of
runoff from deicing and anti-icing operations. However, since its publication in 2009,
significant advancements in technologies, practices, and products have been achieved.
In addition, regulatory and industry developments have occurred, reflecting increased
understanding of the environmental impacts associated with deicing activities and the
effectiveness of existing stormwater management practices. Research was needed to pro-
vide airport industry practitioners with the latest guidance and management practices
related to deicing activities.
The research, led by Mead & Hunt, resulted in not only an update to this report but
also an update of the library of ACRP deicing practices fact sheets, the development of a
spreadsheet-based airport stormwater management decision-support tool, and the creation
of new videos to provide advanced training in managing airport deicing runoff. The team
began with a review of the latest knowledge and practices, including outreach to practi-
tioners (including manufacturers, airlines, and research organizations). This effort served
as the basis for confirming the areas of the report that would need to be revised and/or
updated, developing the decision-support tool, and establishing the topics and level of
detail to be covered in the training videos.
The second edition offers guidance to help practitioners develop a framework for
their deicing runoff control program based on aircraft and airfield deicing require-
ments (e.g., safety issues, FAA regulations, SAE International deicing standards, and
available deicing products), environmental concerns (pollutants and monitoring), and
environmental regulations). The report then offers guidelines for selecting individual
practices focused on source reduction; collection and containment; treatment, recycling,
or disposal; storage; and other factors.
The updated fact sheets complement the report by offering detailed descriptions of
a comprehensive collection of best management practices, including source reduction
techniques, collection/containment practices, treatment and recycling alternatives, and
information on storage options, diversion controls, and monitoring technologies.

The deicing management decision support tool allows users to input airport-specific
information using a series of yes/no responses, checked boxes, drop down menus, and
numerical entries to produce a report summarizing potential options for source reduction;
collection systems; treatment, recovery, and disposal; and storage. It is available on the TRB
website by searching for ACRP Research Report 14, second edition.
Finally, the training videos focus on advanced deicing runoff management. They are
designed to build on existing training resources produced by previous ACRP research, and
are available in the ACRP WebResource 3: Airport Stormwater Resource Library and Train-
ing Materials website (http://www.trb.org/ACRP/Blurbs/176798.aspx). This site provides
searchable, single-point access to all ACRP stormwater-related resources, many non-ACRP
resources, and web-based training.

CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 Background
5 Purpose and Objectives
5 Guidance Structure
6 Chapter 2 Guidelines for Developing Integrated

Deicing Runoff Management Systems
6 Aircraft and Airfield Requirements for Deicing
9 Environmental Concerns
18 Regulatory Drivers
21 Framework for Planning Deicing Runoff Control Programs
29 Role and Application of Modeling Tools
33 Chapter 3 Guidelines for Selecting Individual Practices

33 Overview and Screening Process for Deicing Practices
58 Guidance on Use and Interpretation of the Fact Sheets
62 Chapter 4 Deicing Fact Sheets

62 Aircraft Deicing Source Reduction
63 Airfield Pavement Deicing Source Reduction
63 Deicing Runoff Containment/Collection
63 Deicing Runoff System Components
64 Deicing Runoff Treatment/Recycling
65 References
67 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.


SUMMARY
Deicing Planning Guidelines

and Practices for Stormwater
Management Systems
ACRP Report 14: Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management
Systems established an industry standard reference for the management of airport deicing
runoff. That document provides a central resource for information on why deicing is needed
at airports, the regulatory and other constraints on how it can be conducted to maintain
safe wintertime operations, and the environmental concerns that lead to requirements for
managing stormwater runoff containing deicing materials. A critical aspect of the guide-
book is that it describes the available toolbox of technologies and practices for the practical,
cost-effective control of runoff from aircraft and airfield deicing and anti-icing operations.
The guidebook broke new ground for the industry.
However, ACRP Report 14 was published in 2009 and reflects the state of the industry in
the mid-2000s. In the decade that followed, the industry has gained experience in managing
deicing programs, and seen significant technological and operational advancements that
reduce the amounts of deicers needed to maintain safe winter operations and improve the
effectiveness and practicality of managing runoff containing deicers. In addition, scientific
and engineering investigations conducted since the publication of ACRP Report 14 have
improved understanding of the environmental impacts associated with deicing activities
and the effectiveness of existing deicing runoff management practices.
In response to these needs, ACRP Project 02-71 undertook to update and expand ACRP
Report 14 to provide airport practitioners with the latest guidance and management prac-
tices related to deicing activities. The goal of the Project 02-71 research team was to produce
an up-to-date planning resource that provides state-of-the-science information regard-
ing the selection and implementation of a wide array of methods for the practical, cost-
effective control of runoff from aircraft and airfield deicing and anti-icing operations. The
target audience for this guidance consists of airport staff; aircraft operators; consultants and
designers; and local, state, and federal regulators with an interest in managing deicing runoff.
The research resulted in the following three products.
• ACRP Research Report 14, 2nd edition. This new edition incorporates the following key
updates:
– An overview and evaluation of the current state of practice and emerging issues,
including:
� Environmentally relevant characteristics and potential impacts of aircraft and air-
field deicers.
� Impacts on existing airports of the EPA’s 2012 “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category.”
1

2 Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater Management Systems
� North American and global industry trends in aircraft and airfield deicer application,
collection, and management practices.
� Current state of knowledge and effectiveness of application, collection, and treat-
ment techniques and technologies.

– Revisions to the technology fact sheets that accompanied ACRP Report 14 to reflect
the current state of the practice and knowledge. The revision process included updates
to existing fact sheets, creation of new fact sheets, and retirement of fact sheets that
are no longer relevant.
– Integration with the body of knowledge represented by other ACRP reports that
address different aspects of deicing.
• A Deicing Management Decision Support Tool that airport practitioners can use to help
evaluate different practices related to deicer application and the collection and treatment
of stormwater containing deicers.
• An Advanced Deicing Runoff Management training course that builds upon the existing
Course 4: Managing Deicing Runoff in the ACRP Webresource3 Airport Stormwater
Resource Library & Training Materials website.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This report offers guidelines to assist airports and aircraft operators in identifying and select-
ing best management practices (BMPs) for controlling aircraft and airfield deicing runoff. Air-
craft operators are included in this target audience because of their role as key participants
and stakeholders in any decisions that may affect aircraft safety or operations.
This introductory section presents background on the origins and drivers behind this research
project, describes the purpose and objectives of this document, and explains the structure of
the planning guidance. Subsequent sections present guidelines for developing integrated deicing
runoff management systems (Chapter 2), guidance for evaluating and selecting individual
practices (Chapter 3), and fact sheets describing each of the practices (see Chapter 4).
In addition, the electronic Deicing Runoff Management Decision Support Tool is available on
the TRB website by searching for ACRP Research Report 14, second edition, to facilitate the
identification of deicing runoff management system components that have potential applicability
to an airport’s specific situation.
For the purposes of this guidance document, BMP is used in the most expansive sense and
includes source reduction, collection, containment, storage, and treatment/disposal/recycling
practices and technologies. Because the selection of deicing runoff management measures for
each airport will be based on site-specific considerations and factors, the term should not be
interpreted to mean that a particular practice identified in this document is the best for all situ-
ations. Instead, the collective group of practices identified generally is considered to represent
potentially viable alternatives of managing deicing runoff. Other situation-specific practices or
solutions outside the scope of this document also may be viable in certain situations.
Background
Deicing aircraft and airfield pavement is critical to ensuring safe flight operations during winter
weather. FAA’s clean aircraft concept and associated guidance require that all critical surfaces
of an aircraft be free of contamination at takeoff. Transport Canada (TC) Canadian Aviation
Regulations (CARs) and Standards Part VI subpart 602.11 states, “No person shall conduct or
attempt to conduct a take-off in an aircraft that has frost, ice or snow adhering to any of its critical
surfaces.” Achieving and maintaining these critical conditions during winter weather requires
deicing—removing frost, snow, and ice—sometimes followed by anti-icing—preventing the
development of further accumulations for a limited period of time (that is, holdover time).
These processes are accomplished with a combination of physical removal techniques and
application of specialized deicing and anti-icing products.
Similarly, airfield pavement surfaces must provide sufficient friction for safe landings, taxiing,
and takeoffs during winter weather conditions. Approaches for deicing and anti-icing airfield
3

pavement surfaces are distinctly different than those for aircraft, with physical removal play-
ing a more prominent role and different deicing products being used. For simplicity, unless
there is a reason to make a distinction, the term deicing in this document includes both deicing
and anti-icing.
Deicing products and practices are standardized and implemented with the overriding pri-
ority of safe public travel. FAA and TC standards for aircraft deicing and anti-icing include
the use of products that meet stringent performance specifications defined and published by
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Council. To ensure deicing practices
are appropriately and consistently implemented, they are described in an aircraft operator’s
FAA-approved Ground Deicing and Anti-icing Program, guidelines that are provided in FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 120-60 or in Canada guidelines provided in TP 14052 Guidelines for
Aircraft Ground-Icing Operations. Reflecting the paramount focus on safety, pilots also have
the discretionary power to demand supplemental deicing or anti-icing beyond the formal
requirements if they believe it is needed.
FAA AC 150/5200-30 provides comparable guidance to airport operators in developing a
snow and ice control plan, conducting and reporting runway friction surveys, and establish-
ing snow removal and control procedures. These plans are required for all Part 139–certified
airports and recommended for other airport operators. Guidance for airfield pavement deicing
products is provided in the form of recommendations that they meet applicable SAE specifica-
tions. ACRP Report 123: A Guidebook for Airport Winter Operations is a useful reference for
planning and implementing an effective winter operations program.
Unfortunately, all of the SAE-certified aircraft and airfield pavement deicers have potential
environmental implications when mixed with airfield runoff and discharged in airport storm
water. Concerns over these implications have led to regulation of deicing discharges under
provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(CEPA) in Canada. In the United States, this regulation is typically accomplished through
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit authorizing deicing
stormwater discharges and requiring that controls on deicing runoff be implemented. This
situation can result in airports and aircraft operators facing the dual demands for flight safety
and environmental compliance. Ultimately, flight safety cannot be impaired, and compliance
with environmental laws must be maintained.
Environmental requirements on deicing runoff discharges vary from state to state or province
to province and from airport to airport and may be driven by local environmental concerns
associated with deicing pollutants (see “Environmental Concerns” in Chapter 2). ACRP Research
Report 169: Clean Water Act Requirements for Airports describes the regulations and permitting
programs that apply to regulating the environmental impacts on airport storm water discharges
containing deicers.
In Canada, discharges of storm water containing deicers from federal airports are regulated
under the Glycol Guidelines in the CEPA (P.C. 1994-106, January 20, 1994). The core require-
ment under the guidelines is that
the discharge of (ethylene, diethylene and/or propylene) glycols into surface water resulting from aircraft
de-icing and anti-icing activities at a federal airport does not exceed a concentration of 100 mg/L.
Non-federal Canadian airports are not subject to the Glycol Guidelines per se. However, both
federal and non-federal airports use the guidelines as an indicator of how well deicing runoff
measures are performing, and also are regulated under federal, provincial, county, and/or
municipal environmental regulations intended to protect receiving waters. Ultimately, each
airport has to manage its deicing runoff to comply with water quality requirements deter-
mined by the combination of regulations or bylaws that apply to its specific discharges.

Introduction 5
Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this document is to provide practical planning guidance describing BMPs
for managing airport deicing runoff. The following objectives guided the development of this
document:
• Develop the document as a practitioner’s handbook that is useful to airports, aircraft opera-
tors, their consultants, and relevant regulatory agencies;
• Provide information and practical guidance to assist airports and aircraft operators in decid-
ing what types of practices may be appropriate to meet their particular requirements and
constraints (funding, operations, setting, etc.);
• Provide a Decision Support Tool that airports can use to identify and prioritize practices
and technologies that are potentially suitable for their situation and provide the foundation
and direction for subsequent detailed engineering feasibility analyses and design.
• Present the guidance and Decision Support Tool in a way that overlaps or overlays with the
principal compliance considerations of the NPDES permit program and the CWA.
The purpose of this guidance is to assist airports and aircraft operators in gaining a basic
understanding of the technical issues, screening the spectrum of deicing practices to identify
those that may have potential benefits at their airport, and guiding the development of a deicing
runoff management program.
The guidance and information in this document are not intended to be a substitute for site-
specific planning, permitting, engineering analysis, design, cost estimation, or operational pro-
cedures. Each airport presents a unique combination of physical, climatological, operational,
funding, environmental, and regulatory characteristics that must be evaluated as a whole when an
effective deicing runoff management program is being developed.
Rather, this document is intended to serve as a starting point. It is important to recognize that
the technical and regulatory landscapes surrounding aircraft and airfield deicing are evolving,
which may necessitate that this document be updated periodically to remain current.
Guidance Structure
The structure of the information in this document is top down, beginning with discus-
sions of the issues and principles for developing integrated deicing runoff management sys-
tems, followed by overviews and guidance for selecting currently available deicing practices by
category, and ending with a compilation of fact sheets that describe specific characteristics of
each practice. The Deicing Runoff Management Decision Support Tool is available as a down-
loadable file from the TRB website.

CHAPTER 2
Guidelines for Developing

Integrated Deicing Runoff
Management Systems
This chapter provides an overview of technical and regulatory issues, site-specific factors to
consider, and a generally applicable methodology for developing an effective deicing runoff
control program for airport operators.
Aircraft and Airfield Requirements for Deicing

Safety Issues
Aircraft deicing is required to ensure flight safety. Even small amounts of snow and ice can
seriously degrade the aerodynamic performance of an aircraft’s lifting surfaces with poten-
tially catastrophic consequences. In addition, ice can impede the operation of control surfaces
if it forms on mechanical joints or actuators. Achieving and maintaining safe flight condi-
tions requires deicing, possibly followed by anti-icing, which is intended to provide sufficient
holdover time to keep the critical aircraft surfaces free of ice-related contamination through
taxiing and takeoff. Aircraft deicing is most often conducted by aircraft operators or their
contractors, but pilots have the final responsibility regarding the adequacy of deicing relative
to flight safety.
Similarly, airfield pavement surfaces should provide sufficient friction for safe landing,
taxiing, and takeoffs during winter weather conditions. In most instances, deicing is con-
ducted to maintain critical friction on the airfield pavement surfaces by keeping them free
of snow and ice. Airfield deicing is conducted at the discretion of the airport operator. This
discretion extends to closing the airfield if safe operating conditions cannot be maintained.
Applicable FAA Regulations

Deicing practices are regulated and implemented with an overriding emphasis on safety. No
practice or system of practices should degrade or compromise flight safety. The FAA provides
guidance on activities related to deicing in the form of ACs, FAA orders, and engineering techni-
cal letters. The following key documents provide specific FAA technical and regulatory guidance
to airport operators regarding deicing facilities and controls:
• AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design. Provides standards and recommendations for the design
of civil airports. To ensure aircraft safety, the location and operation of deicing facilities
must follow these clearance and separation standards, which involve airspace, aircraft sepa-
rations, FAA Technical Operations facilities critical areas, and Airport Traffic Control Tower
line-of-sight criteria.
• AC 150/5300-14, Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilities. Provides standards, specifications,
and guidance for designing aircraft deicing facilities. Airport managers can construct,

Guidelines for Developing Integrated Deicing Runoff Management Systems 7
within FAA standards, deicing facilities at terminals, on apron areas and taxiways, and
near departure runways. Aircraft deicing facilities are recommended at airports where icing
conditions are expected, including airports that serve aircraft that can develop frost or ice
on critical surfaces even if the airport itself does not experience ground-icing conditions.
• AC 150/5220-18, Buildings for Storage and Maintenance of Airport Snow and Ice
Control Equipment and Materials. Provides guidance for site selection and design of
buildings used to store and maintain this equipment, approved materials, and personnel
areas required to support the requirements under the airport operator’s winter storm man-
agement plan. Specific maintenance buildings with appropriate storage areas are needed
to help protect and service the costly pieces of complex and technologically sophisticated
equipment for the control of snow, slush, and ice on the nation’s airports.
• AC 150/5200-30, Airport Winter Safety and Operations. Provides guidance to assist air-
port operators to develop a snow and ice control plan, conduct and report runway friction
surveys, and establish snow removal and control procedures. For airports certified under
14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139, Certification of Airports, the Snow and
Ice Control Plan is referenced in section 139.313, Snow and Ice Control. This AC also pro-
vides guidance on aircraft and airfield deicing source controls and snow clearing operations
(deicing activities).
Aircraft deicing facilities funded under federal grant assistance programs must follow these
guidelines.
In addition, FAA provides extensive guidance regarding all aspects of aircraft operations
under winter conditions. The following selected ACs are especially relevant to the objectives of
this guidance document.
• AC 120-60, Ground Deicing and Anti-icing Program. Provides an industrywide stan-
dard for obtaining approval of a ground deicing/anti-icing program. In addition, it pro-
vides a means for a certificate holder to deice/anti-ice aircraft using another certificate
holder’s personnel and procedures or contract personnel who have been trained by the
other certificate holder.
• AC 135-16, Ground Deicing and Anti-icing Training and Checking. Provides guidance
regarding ground deicing and anti-icing training requirements that should be incorpo-
rated into an approved training program for certain aircraft operators; ground deicing and
anti-icing guidance for those aircraft operators that are not required to have an approved
training program; and pre-takeoff contamination aircraft checks required of certain air
craft operators.
• AC 120-58, Pilot Guide Large Aircraft Ground Deicing. Provides recommendations for the
safe operation of large aircraft during icing conditions and guidelines for the development of
adequate procedures for deicing large aircraft.
• AC 120-89, Ground Deicing Using Infrared Energy.1 Provides guidelines and recommen-
dations for pilots, certificate holders, and operators of deicing facilities regarding the use of
infrared technology for deicing aircraft.
• AC 150-5070-6, Airport Master Plans. Provides guidelines and recommendations for prepa-
ration of master plans for airports including environmental factors like aircraft and pavement
deicing.
A comprehensive library of ACs may be found on the FAA’s online Advisory Circulars Library:
http://rgl.faa.gov/.
1
No airports are known to be actively using infrared deicing technology as of the publication date of ACRP Research
Report 14, 2nd edition.

SAE International Deicing Standards

SAE International’s Technical Standards Development Program publishes the following
documents describing specifications, standards, and requirements for virtually every aspect of
aircraft and airfield deicing:
• AMS1424 Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluid, Aircraft SAE Type 1
• AMS1428 Fluid, Aircraft Deicing/Anti-Icing, Non-Newtonian (Pseudoplastic), SAE
Types II, III, and IV
• ARP1971 Aircraft Deicing Vehicle – Self-Propelled
• ARP5058 Enclosed Operator’s Cabin for Aircraft Ground Deicing Equipment
• AS5116 Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Ground Ice Detection
Systems
• ARP5660 Deicing Facility Operational Procedures
• AS5681 Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Remote On-Ground Ice
Detection Systems
• AS5900 Standard Test Method for Aerodynamic Acceptance of AMS1424 and AMS1428
Aircraft Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluids
• AIR6232 Aircraft Surface Coating Interaction with Aircraft Deicing/Anti-Icing Fluids
• AIR6284 Forced Air or Forced Air/Fluid Equipment for Removal of Frozen Contaminants
• AS6285 Aircraft Ground Deicing/Anti-Icing Processes
• AS6286 Training and Qualification Program for Deicing/Anti-icing of Aircraft on the
Ground
• AS6286/1 Processes Including Methods
• AS6286/2 Equipment
• AS6286/4 Weather
• AS6286/5 Health, Safety and First Aid
• AS9968 Laboratory Viscosity Measurement of Thickened Aircraft Deicing/Anti-icing
Fluids with the Brookfield LV Viscometer
These documents are available from SAE International: www.sae.org.
Deicing Products
There are a limited number of products that meet SAE standards and are recommended
by the FAA for use in aircraft and airfield deicing. For aircraft, the predominant deicing and
anti-icing fluids are based on one of two freezing-point depressants (FPDs): propylene glycol
(PG) and ethylene glycol (EG). However, there are commercially available aircraft fluids that
are based on other FPDs. At the time of this writing, other aircraft deicing products based on
propanediol and glycerin are available but have only limited use in U.S. markets. Conversations
with various air carriers indicate that available glycerin-based products may lead to smearing
on the windshield that interferes with visibility. The most dominant fluids used contain glycols
as the main ingredient, along with water and an additives package. The additives package repre-
sents a relatively small fraction (less than 2%) of the total fluid volume, and includes corrosion
inhibitors, surfactants, dyes, thickeners, pH buffers, and defoamers. The specific constituents
vary greatly by product and manufacturer, and are proprietary formulas known only to the
manufacturers.
PG is the dominant FPD in U.S. markets as EG is considerably more toxic. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) states EG can be rapidly absorbed
through the digestive system, and other sources indicate ingestion of approximately three
ounces can be fatal. However, as temperatures decrease below 0°F, PG becomes more viscous,
which can make it difficult for it to be applied to aircraft. In these situations, EG provides a
lower viscosity and better heat transfer and is often used in places like Alaska or Canada.

There are several SAE types of aircraft fluid, categorized on the basis of their use and properties:
• Type I fluids are typically diluted with water and heated before application to remove
frost, ice, and snow from aircraft. Type I fluids are relatively thin-bodied and may provide
some nominal anti-icing protection, depending on the ambient weather conditions. These
fluids are grouped as aircraft deicing fluids (ADFs). SAE publication AMS 1424, “Deicing/
Anti-Icing Fluid, Aircraft,” contains the specifications for these fluids.
• Type II and IV fluids are relatively viscous and are typically applied directly to a clean air-
craft surface without dilution. Type IV fluids have improved holdover times and have largely
replaced Type II fluids used by commercial aircraft operators. These fluids are grouped
as aircraft anti-icing fluids (AAFs). SAE publication AMS 1428, “Fluid, Aircraft Deicing/
Anti-icing, Non-Newtonian (Pseudoplastic), SAE Types II, III, and IV,” contains the speci-
fications for these fluids.
• Type III fluids are intended for anti-icing protection on aircraft with lower rotation speed
at lift off. The use of Type III fluids is relatively limited. SAE publication AMS 1428, “Fluid,
Aircraft Deicing/Anti-icing, Non-Newtonian (Pseudoplastic), SAE Types II, III, and IV,”
contains the specifications for these fluids.
Airfield pavement deicing material (PDM) options are much more varied and include sand
as well as liquid and solid-form deicing chemicals. The FPDs in deicing products include EG or
PG, polyol, urea, potassium acetate, sodium acetate, sodium formate, and potassium formate.
A survey of airports conducted as part of the ACRP Research Report 14, 2nd edition update
indicated that potassium acetate-based fluids and sodium formate based solids are the most
commonly used PDMs in the North American market. Prior to 1990, glycol and urea products
were the primary airfield pavement deicers used at airports. Since then, alternative pavement-
deicing products with reduced environmental impact (for example, lower biochemical oxygen
demands [BODs] and toxicity) have been introduced to the market. This trend was accelerated
by the deicing Effluent Limitation Guidelines, which requires either the elimination of the use of
urea-based airfield deicers or compliance with a relatively stringent limitation on ammonia con-
centrations in storm water discharges. The reduced environmental impact products are available
in both solid (for example, sodium formate and sodium acetate) and liquid (for example, potas-
sium acetate) forms. Limited information is available on the contribution of the acetate- and
formate-based PDMs to toxicity and BOD in airport stormwater discharges relative to those
from aircraft deicers, but research to better define these issues is ongoing.
Ongoing research and development of aircraft and airfield deicers is being driven by both
environmental considerations and materials compatibility issues. These efforts are resulting in
continual improvement of existing products and the introduction of new products.
Environmental Concerns
Deicing runoff can contribute to adverse environmental impacts from the deicing products
used. There also may be environmental impacts from non-deicing-related pollutants that
appear in deicing runoff but are unrelated to the deicers themselves.
Typical Deicing Runoff Pollutants

All chemical formulations currently approved for aircraft and airfield pavement deicing can
have environmental implications when they become entrained in stormwater runoff and are dis-
charged to receiving waters, such as streams, lakes, or rivers. Environmentally relevant charac-
teristics of aircraft deicing and anti-icing products commonly used at North American airports
at the time of this writing are listed in Table 2-1. Similar information regarding airfield pavement

Table 2-1. Summary of available information regarding the environmental characteristics of aircraft
deicing and anti-icing fluids (circa 2018).
BOD5 BOD20 (mg/L)
Biodegradation
or kg O2 /kg
Manufacturer/ Product Specific fluid kg/L
Brand Name FPD Distributor No. Gravity COD (mg/L) TOD 20°C 20°C 2°C 20°C 2°C
Type I
Polar Plus ADF 1.57 g O2/g

PG Cyrotech — 1.043 65% biooxidation — — — —
Concentrate deicer
Polar Plus 63/37 0.90 g O2/g

PG Cyrotech — 1.041 — 40% biooxidation — — — —
Dilute ADF deicer
Polar Plus 55/45 0.86 g O2/g

Dilute ADF deicer
Polar Plus LT ADF 1.61 g O2/g

Concentrate deicer

63/37 Dilute deicer

55/45 Dilute deicer
Octoflow EF PG Clariant 243150 1.044 — — — — — — —
1.26 kg
Octoflow EF 55/45
PG Clariant 243151 1.038 — O2/kg of 44% biooxidation — — — —
Dilute
fluid
Safewing MP I
PG Clariant 197564 1.039 — — — — — — —
ECO Dilute 55/45
Safewing MP I Eco PG Clariant 190933 1.0452 — — — — — — —
1.13 –
1.15
E188 EG LNT Solutions — 1.18 kgO2/kg — 59% biooxidation — — — —
g/cm
25°C
P180 PG LNT Solutions — 1.045 1.34 kgO2/kg — 31% biooxidation — — — —
DOW Chemical 1.29

UCAR Concentrate EG — 1.1 — — — — — —
Company mg/mg
DOW Chemical 1.29

UCAR 50/50 EG — 1.1 — — — — — —
Company mg/mg
DOW Chemical 1.29

UCAR XL 54 EG — 1.073 — — — — — —
Company mg/mg
UCAR PG DOW Chemical 1.045

PG Company — — — — — — — —
Concentrate

Aquatic Ecotoxicity
Toxicity to Aquatic Chronic

Acute Toxicity to Fish Acute Toxicity to Aquatic Inverts Plants Toxicity
Toxicity Chronic to
Sheepshead Fathead Rainbow Daphnia Ceriodaphnia Saltwater Freshwater Marine to Toxicity Aquatic
Minnow Minnow Salmon Trout magna dubia Mysid Algae Algae Microorg. to Fish Inverts Notes
LC50 6,350 LC50 6,825

— — — — — — — — — — (a)
mg/l mg/l
LC50 6,350 LC50 6,825

— — — — — — — — — — (a), (b)
mg/l mg/l
LC50 6,350 LC50 6,825

— — — — — — — — — — (a), (b)
mg/l mg/l
LC50 45,400 LC50 28,000 LC50 21,800

— — — — — — — — —
mg/l mg/l mg/l
LC50 45,400 LC50 28,000 LC50 21,800

— — — — — — — — — (a), (b)
mg/l mg/l mg/l
LC50 45,400 LC50 28,000 LC50 21,800

— — — — — — — — — (a), (b)
mg/l mg/l mg/l
NOEC/ 7
30 DAY
LC50/96 HR EC50/96 HR DAY
— — — — — — — — 2,500 (c)
40,613 mg/l 19,000 mg/l 13,020
mg/l
mg/l
NOEC/ 7
30 DAY
— — — — — — — — 2,500 (c)
40,613 mg/l 19,000 mg/l 13,020
mg/l
mg/l
NOEC/ 7
30 DAY
— — — — — — — — 2,500 (c)
40,613 mg/l 19,000 mg/l 13,020
mg/l
mg/l
LC50/96 HR EC50/72 HR 30 DAY

EC50/48 HR
— — — 40,613 mg/l — — >10,000 — — 2,500 —
10,000 mg/l
(c) mg/l mg/l (f)
LC50/96 HR LC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — —
10,225 mg/l 3,650 mg/l
LC50/96 HR LC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — — —
12,500 mg/l 10,500 mg/l
— — — — — — — — — — — —
LC50/96 HR LC50/96 HR EC50/48 HR EC50/48 HR

— — — — — — — —
7,500 mg/l 15,700 mg/l 43,4200 mg/l 5,700 mg/l

— — — — — — — —
7,500 mg/l 15,700 mg/l 43,4200 mg/l 5,700 mg/l

— — — — — — — — (a)
6,900 mg/l 20,900 mg/l 19,200 mg/l 4,300 mg/l
(continued on next page)

Table 2-1. (Continued).
BOD5 BOD20 (mg/L)
Biodegradation
or kg O2 /kg
Manufacturer/ Product Specific fluid kg/L
Brand Name FPD Distributor No. Gravity COD (mg/L) TOD 20°C 20°C 2°C 20°C 2°C
DOW Chemical 1.035-

UCAR PG 55/45 PG — — — — — — — —
Company 1.055
Kilfrost DF Plus PG Kilfrost — 1.045 1.39 kgO2/kg — 59% biooxidation — — — —
Kilfrost DF Sustain PG Kilfrost — 1.053 1.39 kgO2/kg — — — — — —
Type II
Kilfrost ADB-K Plus PG Kilfrost — 1.040 0.85 kgO2/kg — 27% biooxidation — — — —
Type IV
Polar Guard 0.82 g O2/g

PG Cryotech — 1.038 — 40% biooxidation — — — —
Advance deicer
520,000
Maxflight Type IV PG Clariant 243159 1.041 785,000 mg/l — — — — —
mg/l
Safewing MP IV
PG Clariant 233876 1.043 — — — — — — —
Launch
Kilfrost ABC-S Plus PG Kilfrost — 1.038 0.69 kgO2/kg — 27% biooxidation — — — —
Note: Footnoted information provided by manufacturers

(a) Toxicological information was based on the undiluted product.
(b) Biodegradable information was based on calculation.
(c) Specific toxicological information is not available and propylene glycol was used as a surrogate.
deicing products is contained in Table 2-2. ACRP Web-Only Document 3: Formulations for Air-
craft and Airfield Deicing and Anti-Icings: Aquatic Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
ACRP Web-Only Document 8: Alternative Aircraft Anti-Icing Formulations with Reduced Aquatic
Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand provide more in-depth information on the constitu-
ents of deicers, their environmental implications, and the potential for alternative formulations.
The FPDs in aircraft and pavement deicing products are highly biodegradable in the environ-
ment. Discharges containing deicers may contribute to or result in reduced dissolved oxygen
concentrations in receiving waters as a result of the consumption of oxygen by bacteria as they
break down the biodegradable matter.
Airfield pavement deicers that contain FPDs based on potassium or sodium will contribute
to the total dissolved solids (TDS) of airfield deicing runoff. Elevated TDS in airfield deic-
ing runoff may have implications to certain treatment technologies or the water quality of
receiving waters.
Product additives, and to a lesser extent the FPDs required to meet SAE specifications, may
result in exposure of aquatic organisms to toxic pollutants. The toxicity of individual products

Aquatic Ecotoxicity

Toxicity Chronic to

— — — — — — — — (a)
6,900 mg/l 20,900 mg/l 19,200 mg/l 4,300 mg/l
LC50 96 HR EC50 48 HR
— — — — — — — — — —
6,250 ml/l 3,000 mg/l
LC50 96 HR LC50 96 HR EC50 48 HR

— — — — — — — — —
26,250 mg/l 27,800 mg/l 27,500 mg/l
LC50 96 HR EC50 48 HR
— — — — — — — — — —
1,425 ml/l 750 mg/l
LC50/ >1,000
— LC50 707 mg/l — — — — — — — — —
mg/l
LC50/96 HR EC50/96 HR 30 DAY NOEC/ 7

LC50/48 HR
— — 40,613 mg/l — — — 19,000 mg/l — — 2,500 DAY 13,020
1,975 mg/l
(f) (f) mg/l (f) mg/l (f)
30 DAY NOEC/ 7
— — — — — — 2,500 DAY 13,020
2,443 mg/l 2,443 mg/l 976 mg/l 19,000 mg/l
mg/l (f) mg/l (f)
LC50 96 HR EC50 48 HR
— — — — — — — — — —
1,725 ml/l 1,350 mg/l
varies, depending on the proprietary additive packages unique to each formulation. PG and EG
can be toxic to aquatic organisms at elevated concentrations, but the toxicity of aircraft deicing
runoff is typically driven by the additives in ADF and AAF. The FPDs in acetate- and formate-
based PDMs are the primary source of aquatic toxicity in these products.2 Where urea is used
for pavement deicing, ammonia toxicity to aquatic organisms is typically a significant concern.
Further discussion of the variability in environmental profiles of deicers may be found in the
product selection fact sheets (Fact Sheets 1 and 16).
Other potential impacts of deicers in runoff can include odor problems and growth of nuisance
attached bacteria, typically Sphaerotilus sp. (See ACRP Report 115: Understanding Microbial Bio-
films in Receiving Waters Impacted by Airport Deicing Activities). Occasionally, aircraft-deicing
runoff has been implicated as contributing to foaming problems at stormwater outfalls.
2
Aquatic Toxicity of Airfield-Pavement Deicer Materials and Implications for Airport Runoff, Corsi, S.R., Geis, S.W.,
Bowman, G., Failey, G.G. & Rutter, T.W., Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (1), pp. 40–46 DOI: 10.1021/es8017732

Table 2-2. Summary of available information regarding the environmental characteristics

of airfield pavement deicing products (circa 2018).
BOD5 BOD20
Specific kg O2
Gravity/ /kg
Manufacturer/ Product Relative kg O2 /kg kg O2 /kg Fluid Fluid
Brand Name FPD Distributor No. Density COD (mg/L) TOD fluid, 20°C kg/L, 20°C 2°C 20°C 2°C
Safeway KA HOT PA Clariant 198176 1.281 0.3 kg/kg — — — — — —
58%
Safeway SF SF Clariant 107966 — 0.24 kg/kg — — — — —
biooxidation
1.24 –
0.66 30%
GEN3 Polyol LNT Solutions — 1.27 — — — — —
kgO2/kg biooxidation
g/ml
0.92-
IceCare SF LNT Solutions — 0.95 211 mgO2/g — — — — — —
g/cc
Nachurs I000093,
0.35 kg 21%
Alpine RF-11 PA Alpine I000115, 1.28 — — — —
O2/kg biooxidation
Solutions I000119
Nachurs
Alpine RF-14F PF Alpine I000144 1.33 — — — — — — —
Solutions
Nachurs
I000131;
Ecoway SF Alpine 0.9-1.0 211 mgO2/g — — — — — —
I000132
Solutions
0.68 kg
LC17 PG, PA Cryotech — 1.15 — 0.24 kg O2/kg — — — —
O2/ kg
E36 PA Cryotech — 1.28 — 0.34 O2/g 0.25 g O2/g — — — —
NAAC SA Cryotech — 1.5 — 0.74 O2/g 0.45 g O2/g — — — —
New Deal
NEWDEAL Blend SF, SA — 1.8 — 0.34 O2/g 0.15 O2/g — — — —
Deicing
Note: PA=potassium acetate; SA=sodium acetate; PG=propylene glycol; SF=sodium formate; PF=potassium formate; SP=Susterra
propanediol.
Nondeicing Runoff Pollutants

Stormwater runoff from deicing operations is regulated pursuant to federal and state indus-
trial stormwater permitting programs. Other airport operations may contribute additional
pollutants to these stormwater discharges, including fuels, suspended solids, dissolved solids,
and oils/greases.
Monitoring Considerations
Airport industrial stormwater permits commonly have stormwater monitoring require-
ments for deicing materials or other parameters that may be affected by the presence of deicing
materials. Monitoring may also be conducted to support operation of stormwater management

Aquatic Ecotoxicity

Toxicity Chronic to
EC50/48 HR EC50/72 HR
— — — — — — — — — —
>1,000 mg/l >100 mg/l
EC50/48 HR EC50/72 HR
— — — — — — — — — — —
>1,000 mg/l >100 mg/l
LC50 96 HR EC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — —
>11,000 mg/l >12,000 mg/l
EC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — — — —
3.2 g/l
LC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — — — —
2,825 mg/l
LC50 96 HR EC50/48 HR EC50/72 HR

— — — — — — — — — —
>1,000 mg/l >1,000 mg/l >1,000 mg/l
EC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — — — —
3.2 g/l
LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR
— 4,225 mg/l — — 4,150 mg/l — — — — — — —
LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR LC50/48

6,300 mg/l 3,000 mg/l — — 2,175 mg/l 687 mg/l 1,414 — — — — —
HR mg/l
LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR LC50/48 HR LC50/48
>8,000mg/l 3,750 mg/l — — 3,500 mg/l 1,683 mg/l ~8,000 — — — — —
HR mg/l
LC50/48 HR
— — — — — — — — — — —
3,950 mg/l
control measures, including facilitating segregation of stormwater by deicer concentrations,

monitoring effluent from control measures to assess performance or identify when maintenance
is needed, and metering influent stormwater to treatment system processes. Effective use of moni-
toring to support these purposes requires the selection of appropriate monitoring parameters
(e.g., chemical oxygen demand [COD], dissolved oxygen [DO], ammonia), monitoring type
(handheld, test kit, or online), monitoring methods (e.g., Ultra-violet [UV]/persulfate for online
total organic carbon [TOC]), and instruments. ACRP Report 72: Guidebook for Selecting Methods
to Monitor Airport and Aircraft Deicing Materials includes a step-by-step process for identifying,
evaluating, and selecting methods to monitor stormwater containing deicing materials.
In addition to monitoring for individual parameters, some airports are required by reg-
ulatory agencies to conduct whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing to monitor and limit the

potential for adverse impacts to aquatic organisms. Conducting WET testing at airports can
present unique challenges due to the variability in deicer application, stormwater discharge vol-
umes, and receiving stream flow and assimilative capacity. ACRP Report 134: Applying Whole
Effluent Toxicity Testing to Aircraft Deicing Runoff describes some of the unique characteristics
of stormwater WET testing at airports and provides guidance for developing appropriate WET
testing programs.
Monitoring data may also be used in assessing the effectiveness of existing stormwater control
measures or identifying the need for new or enhanced control measures to manage deicing
materials in stormwater. Implementation of deicer management control measures may repre-
sent a significant investment for an airport and these decisions are often made on the basis of
limited monitoring data. Airports must determine if the monitoring data collected as part of
routine permit compliance monitoring is sufficient to make decisions about the types and sizes
of control measures that are needed. Because deicing chemical loads and stormwater flows are
variable, it is important that the data collected represents the variability in discharges that need
to be managed so that controls are appropriately selected and sized. If more data are necessary
for decision-making, the airport will need to select the appropriate parameters for monitor-
ing and the location, extent, and frequency of monitoring to best meet their desired purpose.
Data must be reviewed to determine if it is accurate and representative of the discharges and
then interpreted using statistics to characterize the stormwater discharges. ACRP Research
Report 166: Interpreting the Results of Airport Water Monitoring: A Guidebook provides guidance
for acquiring, interpreting, and applying stormwater monitoring data.
Green House Gas Considerations

The ways in which an airport chooses to manage stormwater containing glycol may affect
the amount of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the airport and how the emissions are
accounted for in an Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) program greenhouse gas inventory
(www.airportcarbonaccreditation.org). Greenhouse gasses attributable to deicer management
come from energy use associated with the technologies, vehicles, and emissions from degrada-
tion of glycols in biological treatment processes.
Many practices described in the technology fact sheets include processes that require energy.
For example, some practices include pumps, automated valves, aerators, mixers, heaters, sludge
dewatering, or online monitors. Additionally, the glycol recycling technologies are particularly
energy-intensive. Energy purchased off-site is considered an ACA Scope 2 indirect emission.
Energy produced on-site, such as from solar cells or methane biogas influent water heaters in an
anaerobic fluidized bed reactor (AFBR), are considered Scope 1 direct emissions for the ACA pro-
gram. The use of glycol recovery vehicles or specialized deicer application trucks (hybrid or blend
to temperature) may add to the airport’s fleet. Emissions from these vehicles are also considered
a Scope 1 direct emission for the ACA program.
Degradation of glycol through biological methods, whether on-site or off-site, produces

greenhouse gasses. Aerobic processes, such as in the aerated gravel bed, activated sludge,
moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), and most municipal wastewater treatment systems produce
carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Anaerobic processes such as the AFBR produce a mixture of
methane and carbon dioxide as byproducts, although the methane in the AFBR is captured and
either burned in a boiler to heat the influent water, or burned in a flare to convert the methane
to carbon dioxide. In the end, for a given mass load of glycol, all of the biological processes will
produce the same amount of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas emissions from onsite biologi-
cal treatment would be considered a Scope 1 direct emission for the ACA program, and offsite

biological treatment, such as disposal through a municipal wastewater treatment plant, would
be considered a Scope 3 indirect emission. The differentiating factor among the biological pro-
cesses in terms of volume of greenhouse gas emissions is the energy use. Technologies that
include aeration (MBBR, activated sludge, aerated lagoons, aerated gravel bed), significant solids
dewatering (activated sludge), or constant mixing (MBBR) are typically more energy intensive.
Energy use purchased off-site is a Scope 2 indirect emission.
Information regarding energy use is included in the fact sheets and in ACRP Report 99, and
may help in comparing technologies. Precise energy needs are very specific to a site, and are
highly dependent on the amount of water and glycol load managed and airport layout and grade
affecting the distance that water must be pumped.
Materials Compatibility Concerns

Concerns have been raised regarding the compatibility of the acetate and formate for-
mulations with pavement and other airfield infrastructure and certain aircraft materials. The
impacts of concern include pavement deterioration due to Alkyli-Silica Reactivity (ASR), dete-
rioration of airfield lighting components, accelerated corrosion of cadmium plated aircraft
electrical connectors, and evidence of reduced service life of carbon composite brake rotors
and stators as the result of catalytic oxidation. Airports have reported anecdotal evidence of
concrete deterioration in trench drains, pipes, and storage tanks from long-term exposure to
reduced pH conditions resulting from the degradation of deicers. In piping and trench drains
this is often associated with locations with frequent standing water (e.g., pipe sections with
insufficient slopes).
A summary of the issues and available information (as of 2008) is presented in ACRP Syn-
thesis 6: Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure.
Strategies have been developed to mitigate or avoid most of these issues, but the impacts on
carbon brake components remain an active concern in the industry.
Carbon Brake Catalytic Oxidation (CBCO). Research has determined that the alkali
metals in pavement deicers (i.e., potassium and sodium cations) are a primary factor in
accelerated rates of deterioration in aircraft carbon brake components from catalytic oxida-
tion. Potassium has been found to have a greater impact on this phenomenon than sodium.
Alternative pavement deicer formulations that are typically blends of potassium acetate and
another freezing point depressant have been found to exhibit reduced impacts on CBCO, but
with higher BOD content, a dilemma that the industry faces.
SAE International published AIR5567A Test Method for Catalytic Carbon Brake Disk Oxida-
tion to provide a relative assessment of the effect of deicing chemicals on CBCO. This method is
referenced in the AMS 1435 and 1431 standards for liquid and solid airfield pavement deicers,
respectively.
Active collaboration is underway between aircraft manufacturers, aircraft operators, and

runway deicer manufacturers to encourage and facilitate the development of environmentally
and airplane friendly pavement deicers. The International Air Transport Association’s (IATA’s)
CBCO Working Group has been facilitating these collaborations in close coordination with
the SAE G-12 Aircraft Ground Deicing Steering Group. Most manufacturers have research
and development programs that are aware of the CBCO issue and are actively involved in the
aviation industry efforts on this topic. Airports have participated in the industry discussions,
providing perspective on environmental sensitivities, including higher BOD content that may
come with alternative formulations.

Regulatory Drivers
This section provides an overview of the environmental regulations and permitting pro-
grams that authorize discharges associated with airport deicing and anti-icing operations.
Although the emphasis is on regulations that affect U.S. airports, regulations pertaining
to Canadian airports are also discussed. Detailed coverage of U.S. regulations is available
in ACRP Report Research 169: Clean Water Act Requirements at Airports, and the Deicing
Stormwater Permitting page of the ACRP WebResource 3 Airport Stormwater Management
Library & Training Materials website.
The airport owner generally holds the primary responsibility for compliance with these
regulations. However, as new permits are issued, some airport operators are including airlines
on their permits. Compliance responsibility also may be shared with aircraft operators and
other tenants under facility-specific arrangements that include these parties as co-permittees,
or otherwise establish formal responsibilities through lease agreements or mechanisms out-
side the scope of any environmental regulation (i.e., that may indemnify the airport owner for
activities outside of its control but occurring on airport property).
U.S. Federal Acts Effecting Airport Water Quality Regulations

The CWA Section 402 creates a permitting system, known as the NPDES program, through
which all facilities that discharge pollutants from a point source into waters of the United States
must obtain a permit authorizing those discharges. The terms “pollutant,” “point source,” and
“waters of the United States” are all very broadly defined. Point source discharges include, for
example, those from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), those from industrial facili-
ties, and those associated with stormwater runoff.
NPDES permits are issued only to facilities that discharge pollutants directly into receiving
water bodies. Airports and individual leaseholders may have NPDES direct discharge permits
for stormwater or for discharges of other industrial wastewaters that flow directly to receiving
water bodies. Airports that capture deicing operation runoff for treatment or recycling (or that
have other onsite operations that generate and capture wastewater and send it to POTWs) may
have pretreatment permits or agreements with their local POTW for handling those “indirect”
wastewater discharges sent for treatment through the sewer.
U.S. Federal Stormwater Program

Congress established the current NPDES stormwater program in 1987; EPA implemented
it in 1990. EPA now requires that 11 categories of industrial operations obtain NPDES storm
water permits. These categories include Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 45, “trans
portation facilities” that conduct vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, or airport deicing
operations [40 CFR part 122.26(b)(14)(viii)]. The industrial stormwater program regulates
only those discharges associated with industrial activity and otherwise unregulated storm
water discharges that are commingled with those industrial stormwater discharges.
Types of NPDES Industrial Stormwater Permits. The industrial stormwater program is
implemented through two types of NPDES permits. The permitting authority may develop
broader permits that allow specified groups of regulated entities to obtain NPDES permit
coverage—general permits—or permits can be issued directly to the facility that discharges
pollutants to U.S. waters—an individual permit. ACRP Research Report 169: Clean Water Act
Requirements at Airports goes into the details of how these permits differ with respect to applica-
tion and compliance requirements.

Either general permits or individual permits may allow airports to include major tenants as
co-permittees. EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) 2015, which only directly applies
to the few states and the District of Columbia where EPA has not delegated NPDES permitting
authority, requires all regulated parties at an airport to file for permit coverage, although overall
compliance can be shared among the various parties. In most states where permitting authority
has been delegated, whether to include such tenants as co-permittees, cover tenant operations
through the airport’s permit without co-permittee status or require tenants to obtain their own
permits is an airport-specific decision. In both individual and general permit scenarios, airports
may have to engage and manage significant interactions with tenants to ensure that appropriate
controls are in place, are functioning, and lead to permit compliance. This may require relatively
detailed collaboration with the airport’s stormwater pollution prevention team.
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs). Discharge limits in NPDES permits can be
technology-based or water quality-based. Technology-based limits are set by EPA on the basis
of a category or type of discharge, and promulgated as ELGs. ELGs establish minimum national
technology-based requirements to control discharges from the target industry and may include
“new source performance standards” (NSPS) for certain categories of new dischargers. Where
ELGs are insufficient to protect the water quality of the receiving water body, site-specific water-
quality based limits are developed and applied.
In 2012, EPA promulgated ELGs for discharges of stormwater impacted by aircraft and run-
way deicing activities (40 CFR Part 449), often referred to as the “Deicing ELG.” For existing
airports, the Deicing ELG only addresses controlling ammonia in stormwater discharges asso
ciated with airfield deicing practices. This is accomplished through requirements that either
pavement deicers containing urea not be used, or if they are used, limitations on ammonia
concentrations in stormwater discharges be implemented in the permit.
The NSPS, which only apply to new airports and not new facilities or activities at existing
airports, have the same limitations on airfield deicers. In addition, the NSPS add a requirement
for collection of “available” applied ADF and numerical limitations on COD concentrations in
surface water discharges from onsite facilities that treat collected aircraft deicing runoff. Some
airports have encountered confusion about and potential misapplication of the NSPS to exist-
ing airports by their permit writers. A clear understanding of the rule by both airports and
their regulatory agencies is important to avoid such misunderstandings. Additional detail and
information on the Deicing ELG is provided in ACRP Research Report 169: Clean Water Act
Requirements at Airports.
Other Applicable Regulatory Programs

There are specific reporting requirements associated with the use of EG-based deicers. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Super-
fund) requires that releases of certain chemicals in certain quantities must be reported to the
National Response Center (NRC). EG (but not PG) is on the list of chemicals covered by these
regulations and has a reporting threshold (called reportable quantity or RQ) of 5,000 pounds.
Technically, this means that any release (deicing event) that involves 5,000 pounds of EG during
a 24-hour period may be subject to reporting obligations. EPA provides a somewhat stream-
lined three-step reporting methodology for facilities (such as airports) that meet a “continuous
release” definition. Continuous releases are those that are routine, anticipated, and intermit-
tent during normal operations or treatment processes, and that are predictable and regular in
amount and rate. Compliance with the reporting requirements is one reason some airports go
to PG-based aircraft deicers only. Additional information on the RQ program can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/triggers/haztrigs/rqover.htm.

Beyond the CWA and CERCLA requirements already discussed, certain projects, including
expansion and large capital projects that use federal-funding mechanisms, may trigger compli-
ance obligations with other federal environmental laws, including the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the National Historic Preserva-
tion Act (NHPA). Activities that have the potential to release pollutants to soil that will reach
groundwater also must consider the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). All of these
statutes could affect an airport’s ability to discharge pollutants to local waters or groundwater.
Finally, airports also should check with their state and local authorities to determine if there
are state and local environmental or health laws that require authorizations in addition to the
federal programs identified earlier.
Grant Assurances
Deicing projects share many similarities to other airport projects done with federal funding
and are subject to sponsor grant assurances. FAA Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Pro-
gram (AIP) Handbook, provides guidance on the types of deicing projects that may be eligible
for federal funding. Although specific eligibility will vary by project, deicing product storage
buildings are usually ineligible while weather reporting equipment to be used in supporting
deicing decisions or a dedicated deicing pad may be eligible. An eligible deicing pad must be at
a commercial service airport, intended exclusively for deicing operations, and eligibility would
include the drainage collection, treatment and discharge systems, lighting, and paved access for
deicing vehicles and aircraft.
The following grant assurance considerations are especially noteworthy in their applicability
to planning and constructing federally funded deicing projects:
• Sufficient funds must be available for the project and the sponsor (airport) must have legal
authority to carry out the proposed project under its governing body.
• Design and construction should remain compliant with grant assurances such as 14. Mini-
mum Wage Rates, 15. Veteran Preference, and 37. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.
• Because the location of deicing facilities may impact neighboring communities, sponsors
should consider grant assurance 19.b Operation and Maintenance, which ensures that spon-
sors will continue noise compatibility programs; and 21. Compatible Land Use, because the
local zoning ordinance should be compatible with airport use.
Operation of the deicing facility once complete also may be responsible to several grant
assurances. For instance, if the airport decides to allow a third party to conduct deicing opera-
tions, then they should consider grant assurance 22. Economic Nondiscrimination, which
requires all fixed based operators (FBOs) to be subject to uniform rules and charges and gives
air carriers the right to perform service themselves or make their own selection. Similarly,
23. Exclusive Rights prohibits granting exclusive rights for any singular business or person to
provide aeronautical service to the public, although there are some exemptions. It is encouraged
for sponsors to be familiar with and consider implications to the FAA grant assurances and
other AIP funding eligibility concerns before beginning any deicing project. One such nota-
ble AIP consideration includes the Buy American Preferences under 49 USC § 50101, which
requires eligible projects to use steel and manufactured goods produced in the United States,
although some exceptions are provided.
Canadian Federal Acts Regulating Airport Deicing Discharges

There are four (4) national Canadian regulations regarding the discharge of airport deicing
fluids. The first is the CEPA 1999. This regulation set a total glycol discharge limit of 100 mg/l

for discharges to surface waters to protect human health and the environment. The CEPA
1999 requires that the Airport Operator and Aircraft Deicing Service Provider develop a Glycol
Management Plan detailing deicing operation and methods used to prevent environmental
damage from the deicing operation, and annual monitoring reports be prepared. An Emer-
gency Response Plan is also required. The CEPA 1999 applies to all airports owned or operated
by the federal government or located on land that is owned by the federal government.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has prepared surface water quality
guidelines that pertain to deicing. Current water quality standards for EG, diethylene glycol,
and PG are 3 mg/l, 31 mg/l, and 74 mg/l, respectively. These water quality standards are subject
to change and should be checked to ensure the current figures are being used.
Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Wastewater Treatment at Federal Establishments
(EPS-1-EC-76-1) established a 20 mg/l five-day BOD limit to protect surface waters from
oxygen depletion. These guidelines apply to all effluents from land-based establishments under
the direct authority of the federal government.
The Fisheries Act of 1985 (last amended April 5, 2016) protects the fisheries of Canada by
prohibiting activities that could affect fish, fish habitat, or the use of fish. Sections of the Fisheries
Act that could affect airport operations deal with the destruction of fish passageways or the altera-
tion of fish habitat (Section 35) and the deposit of substances harmful to fish (Section 36). The
Fisheries Act is far reaching, and any violation can have serious consequences with the potential
to immediately shut down operations.
Framework for Planning Deicing Runoff

Control Programs
This subsection describes a conceptual framework for developing and implementing a deicing
runoff management system to comply with environmental regulatory requirements. Some of
the elements of this framework coincide with components of a Stormwater Pollution Preven-
tion Plan (SWPPP), but by no means should these discussions be considered a comprehensive
source of material for developing a fully compliant SWPPP. Also, this framework represents one
approach to addressing the component issues and activities. Other approaches may be available
and appropriate. (The primary source for information about SWPPP requirements is found in
your permit. Additional guidance regarding SWPPP requirements for industrial activity under
the NPDES Stormwater Program may be found in the ACRP WebResource 3 Airport Storm
water Management Library & Training Materials website at https://crp.trb.org/acrp0261/).
The material in this section is organized according to the steps generally recognized for devel-
oping an effective deicing runoff management system for an airport. These steps are depicted in
Figure 2-1. This framework is described as an overall process. Some of these steps may not be
applicable at an airport with an existing deicing runoff management plan in place. Also, aircraft
operators should be represented and involved as active participants in this process.
Supplemental information to facilitate understanding and applying this approach is avail-
able in the training courses on deicing found in the ACRP WebResource 3 Airport Stormwater
Management Library & Training Materials website and the ACRP Deicing Runoff Management
Planning Decision Support Tool that accompanies this report.
Identify Environmental Regulatory Compliance Requirements

Compliance with environmental regulatory requirements is a primary objective and metric of
success for deicing runoff management, as well as being a legal obligation. Requirements related

Figure 2-1. Framework for development and implementation of a deicing runoff management strategy.
to permitted deicing discharges will generally fall into the following categories, although these
are not necessarily present in every permit:
• Narrative/qualitative. These requirements typically involve implementing practices such
as handling and storing materials, selecting deicing products (for example, prohibiting urea),
and encouraging conservation practices. Commonly, compliance requires that these prac-
tices be described in a SWPPP, Deicing Runoff Management Plan, or similar document.
• Numerical/quantitative. These requirements establish specific quantitative performance
levels that must be achieved. Typically, they are expressed as concentrations or loads in
permitted discharges. However, numerical limits may also express the performance of
collection efforts in terms of fraction of applied deicers either collected or contained in storm-
water discharges.
• Reporting. These requirements include routine reporting related to deicing activities and
associated stormwater discharges. In some cases, compliance reporting may include some
form of demonstration that the practices and other elements of an airport’s SWPPP or
Deicing Runoff Management Plan have been implemented and are working.
An inventory of all compliance requirements establishes the performance requirements for
the deicing runoff management system.
Assess Current Compliance with All Applicable Requirements

Once all applicable regulatory requirements have been defined, the current status of com-
pliance with those requirements can be assessed. If compliance is being achieved with current
practices, then normally no further action will be needed. On the other hand, deficiencies in
achieving compliance under existing conditions will set the context focus for activities described
in subsequent steps.
Assess Potential Sources of Deicer Loading to Stormwater

This subsection describes the fundamental step of understanding the sources and mecha-
nisms that may cause deicers to become entrained in stormwater. The first component is to

understand the drainage patterns at the airport. The second is to identify and inventory deicing
activities that contribute to runoff.
Some of the information presented here addresses runoff control beyond deicing operations.
However, it is presented to emphasize the need to integrate deicing into an airport’s overall
stormwater management strategy.
Assess Airport Drainage System. An airport drainage system is typically a complex com-
bination of natural systems and constructed infrastructure covering multiple drainage areas
that discharge to different receiving waters. Comprehensive knowledge of the layout and func-
tion of the drainage system is needed to understand where runoff originates, how it flows, and
what activities may contribute pollutants to stormwater, as it flows towards a receiving water
body. At a minimum, understanding the drainage system requires the following information:
• Site boundaries and tenant facilities (buildings, roads, access, etc.).
• Pervious and impervious surfaces and flow directions.
• Layout of the airside and landside storm drain systems including catch basins, pipes, con-
nections, and outfalls.
• Location, configuration, and design data for all stormwater controls; these would include
ponds, collection vaults, oil–water separators, infiltrators, filters, flow splitters, etc.
• Receiving water bodies.
• Location of materials exposed to precipitation.
• Location of deicing activities and support functions that may impact stormwater, such as
aircraft deicing or anti-icing, airfield deicing, ground support equipment operations, deicer
storage and handling, snow disposal, etc. It is worth noting that atypical deicing practices,
such as using aircraft deicers to melt ice on ground service equipment, may affect the risk
of non-compliance with discharge permits. These atypical practices may not be well docu-
mented or quantified but should be taken into account when designing collection systems
and sizing deicer management infrastructure.
The inventory of the airport’s drainage system could lead to identifying the possibility of
rerouting runoff from deicing areas to avoid discharging to sensitive receiving waters. Pursuing
such an opportunity requires site-specific analysis of regulatory, technical, operational, and legal
considerations that are beyond the scope of the generalized guidance presented here.
Inventory Potential Sources of Deicing Runoff. Potential sources of aircraft and pavement
deicing runoff must be identified, quantified, and prioritized. Data on types, volumes, and con-
centrations of aircraft deicers and anti-icers used, along with the locations of those uses, should
be compiled from all aircraft operators and FBOs that conduct deicing. Attention should be paid
to understanding exactly what is represented in the usage data reported by each entity, with a
focus on information that reflects the components of the deicers that are of environmental rel-
evance. For example, operators may report gallons of applied Type I ADF with no record of the
dilution mix (i.e., ratio of ADF concentrate to water) in the applied fluid. If the operators always
use the same mixture, then it can be assumed that the glycol concentration in the applied fluid
is constant. However, if different mixtures are used under different deicing conditions, having
a record of those mixtures will support a more accurate estimate of total glycol used for aircraft
deicing.
Other elements of the aircraft deicer inventory should include the locations of storage
tanks and transfer stations for deicing fluids, and types of equipment used for aircraft deicing.
Performance data on existing aircraft-deicing practices also may be helpful.
Data that describes the types and amounts of airfield pavement deicers used also should be
compiled, along with the areas where they are applied. Pavement deicer storage and handling
areas should be identified, along with descriptions of any existing pavement deicing practices
that may be in place.

Available data on discharges of deicing runoff to stormwater outfalls and treatment systems
should be compiled. The critical information here will be flow and volume measurements and
associated concentrations of deicing-relevant parameters (glycols, BOD, COD, total organic
carbon, ammonia, acetates, formates, etc.). Information regarding deicing season weather
conditions (for example, typical conditions and extreme events) also should be developed
during this step. ACRP Research Report 166: Interpreting the Results of Airport Water Monitoring:
A Guidebook provides guidance on acquiring, interpreting, and applying monitoring data to
characterize stormwater quality.
The goal of this exercise is to characterize the flow of deicing chemicals through the air-
port stormwater system by constructing an approximate material (that is, mass) balance.
This analysis will provide an understanding of available data, reveal the spatial distribution of
deicing activities and use, and indicate whether the material balance needs to be broken down
into distinct areas within the airport. The material balance can be depicted as in Figure 2-2.
The material balance is an approximate calculation due to inherent uncertainty in the fate
of deicers once they become exposed to wind, soil, and water. Deicer use records are useful to
evaluate the maximum amounts that could potentially mix with precipitation and runoff. This
information is likely to be the most accurate element of the material balance, provided that
good recordkeeping practices are in place. Concentrations and volumes of runoff captured by
collection efforts and sent to treatment and recycling can be used as a conservative estimate
of how much material was not released to the environment. Outfall-monitoring data can pro-
vide an estimate of how much material reaches receiving waters, provided that the data are of
sufficient quality and temporal resolution. Outfall monitoring may not be a reliable source of
information because of the cost and technical difficulties of obtaining reliable data. In addition
to these three quantities, an estimate of fugitive losses is necessary to complete the mass
balance. Fugitive losses occur as a result of fluid adhering to aircraft after takeoff, dripping,
tracking on the wheels of ground support equipment, being carried off as wind drift, or bio-
degrading on pavement surfaces and in soils (Revitt and Worral 2003). These fugitive losses
are typically estimated “by difference.” It is not uncommon to see this fugitive fraction consti-
tute as much as 20 to 60% of the total deicing materials used (Skjefstad 2005; Williams 2006;
Wagoner 2006; Corsi et al. 2006).
Despite the uncertainties, a simple material balance establishes a basis for understanding the
magnitude of the potential sources of deicing runoff and their geographic distribution. This
information can be used to prioritize management measures.
Define Runoff Management System

A deicing runoff management system is an assemblage of practices that, as an integrated
whole, achieves environmental regulatory compliance within the context and constraints of
Figure 2-2. Material balance.

safety, as well as operational and cost requirements and objectives. As discussed previously,
practices for controlling deicing runoff can be arranged in three categories:
• Source reduction;
• Containment/collection; and
• Discharge/treatment/recycling.
This step in the framework involves identifying and evaluating different system configura-
tions to determine which one will best meet the diverse needs of safety, operational feasibility,
regulatory compliance, and cost-effectiveness.
The process of formulating a system of runoff controls consists of four steps:
1. Identify potentially suitable practices;
2. Select practices;
3. Identify constraints on system design; and
4. Design and evaluate system alternatives.
The Deicing Runoff Management Decision Support Tool is a useful resource in supporting
the initial steps in this process.
Identify Potentially Suitable Practices. Deicing runoff practices are identified based on
their suitability to address an airport’s compliance requirements, usually specified in the NPDES
permit (see “Implementation of Regulations in Different Types of Airport Discharge Permits”).
Depending on these facility-specific requirements, controls may need to be identified from
one or more of the three categories: source controls, containment/collection, and treatment/
recycling. Generally, if source control practices are not going to be adequate for meeting com-
pliance, then both containment/collection and treatment/recycling practices will be required.
An initial screening of practices will identify those that have potential within the specific con-
text of an individual airport. Potentially suitable practices should meet the following criteria:
• Meet all applicable safety requirements;
• Be applicable to the geographic, operational, and climatic context of the airport;
• Be suited to addressing the sources and pollutants of specific concern; and
• Have order-of-magnitude costs consistent with the scale of the deicing operations, the nature
of compliance requirements, and the economics of the facility.
Information that will be useful in evaluating these criteria is provided in Chapter 3 and the
individual fact sheets.
The resulting list of candidate practices will serve as the basis for a more detailed assessment
and selection of practices that can serve as the building blocks of a deicing runoff management
system.
Select Candidate Practices. Once the subset of potentially applicable practices has been
identified, further evaluation will lead to selection of those practices best suited to the facility.
This evaluation may reveal the need to subdivide the facility into areas where different prac-
tices are appropriate. Chapter 3 provides guidance in the technical aspects of the selection
processes of suitable practices.
The selection of suitable practices should involve all relevant stakeholders, especially air-
craft operators, to ensure that facility-specific issues are thoroughly considered and stake-
holders who could be responsible for implementing or operating individual practices have
input in the selection process. Many practices are implemented and under the control of
aircraft operators, making their participation in the consideration and selection of those
practices essential. Similarly, aircraft operators should be consulted regarding any practices

that may have a significant and direct impact on aircraft operations. The importance of this
involvement applies throughout the process of developing and implementing a deicing run-
off management strategy.
The resulting list of candidate practices will serve as the basis for subsequent development
and evaluation of alternative practice system configurations.
Identify Constraints on System Design. Before assemblages of candidate practices can be
arranged into runoff control system alternatives, constraints on system design that may not have
been apparent when individual controls were being evaluated must be considered. For example:
• Maintenance of aircraft/airfield safety, including wildlife hazard concerns.
• Assurance of efficient aircraft operations at present and planned demand levels.
• Design conditions, such as deicing event size or frequency of system capacity exceedances,
associated with compliance requirements.
• Available POTW or other existing treatment facility capacity, policies on discharge concen-
trations and loads, and discharge fee structures.
• Pretreatment requirements.
• Airport master plan, airport layout plan, navigation aids, and other constraints on space
availability.
• Environmental factors (wetlands, floodplains, sensitive ecosystems, nondeicing pollutants
of compliance concern, air emissions).
• Anticipated growth that may affect deicing activities and controls.
• Special flight operations requirements.
• Accessibility of candidate practice installations on the airfield.
• Funding sources and cost constraints.
• System operation complexity.
• Acceptance by tenants and other stakeholders.
• Constructability.
• Utility conflicts.
• Aesthetics.
These factors may lead to adjustments in the system configuration, but also could require the
introduction of practices that were not initially in the list of preferences and that may call for
further stakeholder involvement. At this stage in the design process, these factors serve primarily
as criteria to evaluate conceptual system alternatives.
Assemble and Evaluate Practice System Alternatives. Practices are assembled into con-
figurations that are realistically anticipated to meet the regulatory compliance requirements.
Potentially applicable source reduction practices are typically defined first to establish a basis
for deicer usage expectations, followed by containment/collection and treatment/recycling
practices. Generally, the objective will be to take advantage of source reduction opportunities
to the extent possible within the requirements of safety and efficient operations and then opti-
mize the other two categories of practices to reduce the size and cost of the system.
Developing conceptual system alternatives includes the placement of practices. Runoff
collection practices may need to be arranged in a configuration that provides containment,
diversion controls, conveyance, storage, pretreatment, and onsite or offsite treatment or recy-
cling, while also facilitating aircraft operations. It often will be feasible to arrive at more than
one system configuration.
After the conceptual system is laid out, individual practices may be sized using design param-
eters and performance requirements. Sizing for conveyance, storage, and treatment practices
requires characterization of the hydrology and deicer loading in runoff to develop peak flows

and runoff volumes that the practices must handle. Hydrologic, hydraulic, or water quality
models are used to estimate these quantities from data on weather, aircraft, and pavement deicer
use, flight operations, basin surface characteristics, and storm sewer system features. The effect of
individual practices on deicing runoff is estimated using a variety of tools specific for each control,
ranging from empirical equations to separate computer models. In practice, simple computa-
tions and rules of thumb may be used to perform preliminary sizing as the system is conceptually
designed. The configuration of the system needs to be modified if the estimated performance does
not meet compliance criteria; this introduces iterations in the design process. More sophisticated
computational tools may be needed to evaluate the range of options related to system sizing
and performance under the full range of temporally varying conditions and/or with complex
configurations. Such analyses can help avoid over-sizing infrastructure or inadequately address-
ing compliance risk.
It is important to recognize the sources and impact of sources of uncertainty in sizing collec-
tion, storage, and treatment practices. Typically, model estimates of flow and runoff volumes
are more accurate than those of deicer application rates and resulting runoff concentrations.
In addition, the actual performance of practices often does not reflect ideal conditions, and prac-
tice performance may decline with age and with poor maintenance. Models may be used to
evaluate the significance of those uncertainties when looking at the range of options and sen-
sitivities to a variety of conditions. Engineering judgment needs to be applied in defining the
input parameters and interpreting the output of models.
Cost estimates for the alternative systems are estimated once the individual components are
defined, located, and sized, including ancillary features for access and maintenance. Construc-
tion cost elements include engineering design, permitting, and the expenses for installation and
startup of the system. Operations and maintenance (O&M) cost elements include operator time
(e.g., monitoring, data analysis, system adjustments, reporting), utilities, materials, replacement
parts, and repair activities to maintain the performance of the individual controls. Life cycle
costs are estimated using a suitable discount rate to enable comparison of systems with different
capital and O&M cash flows, and useful lives.
The final step in the process is to decide which conceptual deicing runoff management
system best meets the diverse requirements of safety, compliance performance, efficient air-
craft operations, siting, practicality, reliability, and affordability. The system requirements
and constraints identified earlier are used along with the performance and cost to make this
decision. Often, as the design progresses, a clear choice becomes apparent. If not, a scoring
and ranking process may be applied to assist the decision-making process.
Develop Deicing Runoff Management Plan

The preferred runoff control system will typically undergo a process of refinement during
which configurations, sizes, and cost estimates are refined. A deicing runoff management plan
is developed around the selected conceptual system specifying the following:
• Purpose and objectives for the system (including compliance criteria);
• Identification of responsible parties;
• Basis for system and component sizing;
• Description of the runoff control system components and configuration;
• Schedule and budget for phased implementation;
• System operational rules;
• Schedule of O&M activities;
• Metrics of system performance;
• Data collection and analysis to evaluate performance;

• Strategies for addressing performance deficiencies; and

• Procedures for recordkeeping.
These elements can be defined in a stand-alone document or folded into the airport’s
SWPPP.
Implement Management Plan

For implementation, the deicing runoff management plan should be fully integrated with the
airport’s SWPPP. Because the plan usually involves significant expenses and resources, imple-
mentation is typically achieved in phases. The scheduling of these phases should be vetted by
the regulators before it becomes part of the SWPPP.
A detailed implementation schedule should be developed to take into account procurement
processes, construction activities, commissioning, start-up, and airport operations. Similarly,
a detailed annual cash flow needs to be projected. Tenants and other stakeholders must be
involved in the development of the implementation schedule so that they can have input and
begin planning for and implementing any adjustments in their practices and operations that
may be involved.
The review process (described in “Revise Deicing Runoff Management Plan”) marks the time
to plan the activities for the coming year.
Monitor and Evaluate Effectiveness

The performance of the deicing runoff management system, as implemented in the plan,
should be assessed on a regular basis to allow for adaptive management. Typically, this review
will coincide with the end of the deicing season.
The metrics used to assess system performance will be specific to the compliance require-
ments within the airport’s NPDES permit. The most common NPDES metrics associated with
deicing runoff are collection performance and concentrations of pollutants in stormwater
discharges associated with deicing. It may be useful to consider additional metrics for each of
the practices to provide greater insight into system operation. In addition to concentrations
at outfalls, the following are examples of metrics to measure progress toward meeting the goals
in the deicing runoff management plan:
• Deicer use (correlated to weather);
• Deicing runoff treated;
• Onsite treatment performance (e.g., influent and effluent BOD concentrations, percent removal
of BOD);
• Recycled quantities of glycol;
• Number of aircraft operators implementing source control practices; and
• Estimate of annual BOD removed by the runoff control system.
If compliance requirements are not being met, the cause should be investigated. It is possible
that one or more deicing practices are not functioning as expected, or that extreme weather con-
ditions outside of the conditions assumed when the system was designed have occurred. Exam-
ining the metrics may reveal these problems and help isolate underperforming components.
Appropriate corrective actions may need to be implemented, as discussed in the next section.
It also will be important to assess the performance of the system with respect to nondeicing
metrics, such as safety requirements, efficiency of aircraft operations, and compliance with other
environmental requirements.

Revise Deicing Runoff Management Plan

At most airports, the airport’s SWPPP will be reviewed annually as part of compliance with
its NPDES industrial stormwater permit. This is an opportunity to review the deicing runoff
management plan and identify the infrastructure modifications and maintenance activities that
will be accomplished during the coming year. The annual review is also an opportunity to adjust
the implementation schedule based on the previous year’s accomplishments and delays, which
will affect the current year’s activities.
The evaluation described in the previous subsection will indicate whether the deicing run-
off management plan is meeting its objectives. If the performance is below the target, correc-
tive measures will need to be implemented. These measures may involve maintenance actions,
enhancement, or replacement of practices with more-effective controls, or modifications to the
overall system. If an upgrade to the system is indicated, the monitoring plan may need to be
adjusted to reflect the new configuration.
This task completes the cycle shown in Figure 2-1, illustrating the application of principles
of adaptive management to deicing stormwater management. It is important that stakeholders
be involved as the management program evolves. It is also often advisable to keep regulators
informed and appropriately involved in the process.
Role and Application of Modeling Tools

Computer models are powerful tools for simulating quantity and quality aspects of storm
water pollution, provided that they are appropriately matched to the problem being analyzed
and properly constructed and interpreted. A simple materials balance, which is itself a model,
may not adequately describe the complexities and dynamics of deicing runoff generation,
transport, and discharge to support the characterization of sources of deicing runoff, and
the subsequent identification and evaluation of alternative practice system configurations. An
example of a situation where this might be the case is a permit that establishes maximum loads
to receiving streams, perhaps based on a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determination.
In those instances, the basic materials balance data may be subsequently used to support a variety
of computer modeling tools that provide a more sophisticated representation of the airport,
deicing activities, and associated runoff.
The selection of a model is guided by two basic principles:
1. Choosing a model that fits the problem to be addressed. A model should represent the
physical processes critical to the characterization of the problem. The essential nature of
the problem should not be modified to meet the capabilities of a particular model—or the
expertise of the modeler.
2. Selecting the appropriate level of model complexity consistent with goals and available
data. A model should be as simple as possible while addressing the needs of the analysis.
It should also be selected to make effective use of the data available, without incorporating
complexity that data cannot support. The output from the model only can be as accurate
as the input data and parameters used to drive it.
Models can be used for characterization of conditions as well as system design. A pollutant-
loading model can be used to characterize the loads generated by each of the drainage areas in
an airport. A hydraulic model of the stormwater conveyance system that simulates rainfall-
runoff processes can be used to size inlets, pipes, treatment facilities, and other stormwater
infrastructure.

Precipitation-runoff models may be designed to evaluate the response to individual events

or simulate long periods of weather. Single-event models are useful in sizing of conveyance and
treatment infrastructure under an assumed “design” event condition. On the water quality side,
single-event models can provide estimates of pollutant removal under assumed conditions.
Continuous simulation models describe the response of a system to a time series of weather
conditions. Continuous simulation models tend to be more complex than single-event models
but are useful in revealing temporal trends and evaluating risk over a wide range of conditions,
and in evaluating cumulative storage volume requirements over the course of one or more
seasons. ACRP Report 81: Winter Design Storm Factor Determination for Airports provides
guidance on identifying appropriate winter design event conditions based on modeling objec-
tives and data availability.
Models are approximate (therefore, imperfect) representations of the physical world, and
this imperfect knowledge introduces uncertainties in the output. This statement is more criti-
cal for water quality modeling efforts than for water quantity. The issue of data availability and
data requirements should be carefully considered in determining an appropriate modeling
approach. Available data representing critical factors, such as deicer use and associated weather
(for example, ice and snow), are often very limited. Without site-specific measurements over
a representative range of conditions, extrapolation from other parameters or other facilities
may be required, which introduces a potentially significant source of uncertainty. Whenever
possible, models should be calibrated using site-specific data, and a sensitivity analysis should
be conducted to understand the implications that the variability in model parameters has on
the output.
At times, the accuracy of model output may not be as important as representativeness when
it is used to make management decisions. For example, a modeling effort that compares alter-
native management scenarios does not need to focus on the absolute values of output variables
but on the relative differences among scenarios under the same set of underlying assumptions
and parameter inputs.
There are no commercial, off-the-shelf, or public domain models specifically designed for
comprehensively modeling all of the processes involved in deicing stormwater flow and quality
at airports. Modeling is often performed piecemeal using several separate models, each suited to
a particular aspect of the system. Table 2-3 summarizes potential approaches to modeling air-
port stormwater processes. Note that many of the processes relevant to deicing runoff manage
ment could be modeled using spreadsheet tools. Also, models range in level of sophistication
required for operation, and advanced training in the use of many of the more-sophisticated
modeling tools is required for their application.

Table 2-3. Modeling approaches for airport runoff quantity

and quality processes.
Process Approach
Hydrology
Runoff generation Several commercial and public-domain models are available to simulate the
generation of runoff from rainfall (e.g., SWMM, a TR-55,b HEC-HMSc). These
models are useful to size conveyances and treatment facilities for hydrologic
control (e.g., peak flow attenuation), and to withstand severe events. However,
for deicing, runoff generation typically involves snow or ice melt and many
models do not have this capability. SWMM and HEC-HMS can simulate snow
processes, but not ice. It should be noted that meteorological measurements of
snow, and especially ice, are often sparse or unavailable.
Models based on the “curve number” methodology (e.g., TR-55) are appropriate
for extreme events but not for the small storms that make up most of the annual
runoff.
The Rational Method can be used for design of relatively simple drainage
configurations, and for pipe sizing for more complex systems. However, a
continuous simulation hydrologic and hydraulic model (e.g., SWMM) is
recommended to obtain an optimized final design and realize cost savings.
Infiltration Infiltration is not a significant component in extreme events. For small events,
infiltration can play a major role in reducing runoff volume. For snowmelt flow,
infiltration is greatly reduced if the ground is often frozen, if the soil is still
saturated, or most of the flow comes from paved areas. There are numerous
approaches to simulating infiltration, for instance the Green-Amptd and Hortone
empirical formulas. Some of these are included in existing hydrologic models
like SWMM and HEC-HMS.
Evapotranspiration Similar to infiltration, evapotranspiration can be significant for small rain storms.
In the winter months when deicing is required, evapotranspiration is very small.
Evapotranspiration data are not widely available and a common method is to
derive them from mass or energy budgets such as the Bowen Ratio and
Penman methods,f or empirical equations such as the Thornthwaite method. g
Hydraulics
Conveyance Hydraulic models are the strongest component in the modeling process. At
airports, hydraulic modeling addresses flow in pipes and open channels
conveying runoff from paved and unpaved surfaces to treatment facilities and
outfalls. Suitable models are SWMM for pipe flow and HEC-RASh for open
channel flow.
Water Quality
Pollutant loading There are no standardized models to simulate the uses of aircraft and airfield
deicers, and the subsequent generation of BOD loads from de/anti-icing
operations. A variety of approaches to modeling the pollutant load associated
with aircraft and pavement deicing may be taken. These range from discrete
models which attempt to estimate application rates on a per-aircraft basis to
empirical/statistical-based models. All approaches require site-specific
information regarding historical deicer usage, weather conditions during deicer
application, and airport flight schedules. The availability of information for these
models will affect model accuracy and validity.
Pollutant wash-off Pollutants become mobile when they come in contact with runoff. The
hydrodynamic, chemical, and biological processes involved are extremely
complex and fraught with uncertainty. Simulation of runoff quality is still an
evolving field of science, and credibility of the results depends heavily on
accurate field data for calibration and verification.
For many applications, simpler, event-based methods can be effective where a
finer temporal distribution is not required. One method is to develop a rating
curve that relates flow to concentration. A second method uses the concept of
Event Mean Concentration (EMC), which is the flow-weighted average
concentration of a pollutant during an event. EMCs are typically lognormally
distributed (Huber and Dickinson 1992). Regardless of the method, adequate
field data are needed to arrive at reliable representations.
The SWMM model can be used for this purpose but a custom model can also
be programmed in a spreadsheet.
Methods have been developed to quantify the fugitive loss mechanisms in a
i
way that would support inclusion in a mechanistic model. This is an area where
much research is still needed.

Process Approach
Pollutant decay Many pollutants undergo a series of physical, chemical, and biological
processes that begin as soon as they come in contact with the environment.
The BOD in deicers begins to degrade on pavement surfaces, and degradation
continues as deicing runoff travels through the stormwater conveyance system
(Revitt and Worrall 2003; Revitt et al. 2002). These processes are very complex
and depend on a number of environmental factors, including temperature, which
is typically low during deicing events. A common approach to modeling pollutant
transformation as it is transported by runoff is to assume a lumped loss factor
that includes all fugitive mechanisms, estimated from available mass balance
monitoring data. Decay may be important for flow in swales and other natural
conveyances, where a more explicit representation may be required. In either
case, reliable field data are needed to derive the model parameters.
These processes are available in models like SWMM but can also be
programmed in a custom spreadsheet.
Pollutant removal in Both collection and treatment practices reduce the pollutant loads generated by
runoff controls deicing operations and released to the environment. Collection practices may
be characterized as a fraction of applied deicers removed by collection
activities. Representation of treatment\recycling will depend on the nature of the
process and the destination of the effluent stream relative to the objectives of
the modeling analysis.
Receiving water This modeling component may be critical where the need for permit limitations
quality to protect receiving water quality must be determined or discharge limits must
be developed in response to that need.
Receiving water quality models take the pollutant inputs at outfalls and simulate
their fate as they move in natural systems. Besides dilution, the processes in
natural streams, lakes, and estuaries are complex and their representation again
depends on reliable field data. Simple models, such as the Streeter-Phelps
dissolved oxygen model, can be constructed and implemented in spreadsheets.
More complex models that have been applied to simulate the impact of deicing
discharges on surface waters include the WASPj model, QUAL2Kk and CE-
QUAL-W2,l and HSPF.m These are progressively complex programs, and
extensive modeling experience is typically required for their application.
a Rossman (2004). f Bras (1990). k Chapra et al. (2007).
b USDA (1986). g Singh (1989). l Cole and Buchak (1995).
c USACE (2006a). h USACE (2006b). m Bicknell et al. (1997).
d Mein and Larson (1973). i APS Aviation Inc. (2005).
e Bedient and Huber (1989). j Wool et al. (2001).

CHAPTER 3
Guidelines for Selecting

Individual Practices
This section provides an overview of the range of practices currently available to address
airport deicing stormwater management needs and guidance for the review, interpretation, and
use of the fact sheets.
Overview and Screening Process for Deicing Practices

Assessing the Need for Practices
Factors that would prompt an airport to pursue the implementation of new or additional
practices include the following:
• Concerns arise regarding potential impacts of deicing discharges on receiving-water quality,

such as reduced dissolved oxygen, aquatic toxicity, nuisance odors, bacterial growth, or other
evidence of possible impairment.
• Physical or analytical monitoring results at airport outfalls indicate permit exceedances
or potentially significant increases to the volume or concentration of deicing stormwater
discharges.
• Significant changes occur in aircraft fleet mix, size, and total number of flights that poten-
tially increase the volume of deicer applied and thus the volumes or concentrations of deicing
stormwater.
• Changes occur in the airport drainage system that includes the size or location of deicing areas.
• Compliance requirements change as the result of revised or newly applicable environmental
regulations. The Deicing ELG mentioned in Chapter 2 is an example of new regulations that
changed compliance requirements associated with airfield pavement deicing practices.
• Reduced allowances for flow or BOD concentrations and/or loads or increases in the cost
for treatment of discharges of deicing runoff to a publicly owned or other offsite treatment
facility.
The spectrum of available deicing practices represents the toolbox from which the airport
planner or manager can select the most appropriate tools for their requirements. Not every
practice will be appropriate for an individual airport’s deicing runoff management program.
There is significant variation among airports in many aspects of deicing operations and runoff
management, including nature, scale, and complexity of aircraft operations; climate; deicing
materials and methods; existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems; regulatory
permit requirements; and availability and access to resources such as POTW. The fact sheets
and Decision Support Tool that accompany this guidebook are intended to help the reader
understand the breadth of available options for constructing a deicing runoff management
system and serve as aids in the initial screening of practices.
33

Deicing Practice Categories

After an airport has determined that deicing practices are needed, it will need to assess the type(s)
of practice(s) that are most appropriate to meet their deicing management needs. For the
purposes of this document, the fact sheets have been divided into five functional categories:
1. Aircraft deicing source reduction;

2. Airfield pavement deicing source reduction;
3. Deicing runoff containment/collection;
4. Deicing runoff treatment/recycling; and
5. Deicing runoff system components.
Each practice category will not necessarily be represented in any given airport system, and
some airport systems may incorporate multiple practices under a single category or multiple
categories. A given type of practice also may be implemented at one or multiple points in an
airport’s drainage system.
Distinctions among practice categories are summarized in the following paragraphs.
• Aircraft Deicing Source Reduction. These practices reduce the amount of aircraft-deicing
materials available to mix with precipitation and become deicing stormwater or reduce the
amount of potential environmental contaminants within applied deicing material. This
category includes high-efficiency application equipment, alternative deicing materials, pro-
cedures, and information systems. Typically, these practices are implemented by aircraft
operators, and their feasibility is greatly dependent on the nature of aircraft operations and
potential impacts on aircraft operations and safety. Thus, the airport authority and the air-
craft operators need to work cooperatively in the consideration of these practices. Where
source reduction is feasible, it may reduce the downstream requirements for collection,
storage, and treatment/recycling.
• Airfield Pavement Deicing Source Reduction. These practices reduce the amount of air-
field pavement deicing materials available to mix with precipitation and become deicing
stormwater or reduce the amount of potential environmental contaminants within applied
airfield pavement deicing materials. This category includes high-efficiency application
equipment, alternative deicing materials, procedures, and information systems. Because of
the significant difficulties in practical collection and treatment of airfield runoff, these prac-
tices represent the primary strategy for managing airfield deicing runoff.
• Deicing Runoff Containment/Collection. These practices consist of technological approaches
to isolating and capturing deicing stormwater before it reaches receiving waters. This category
includes specialized collection equipment, deicing area runoff collection systems, and drain-
age isolation and diversion systems. Implementation of a containment/collection practice
will usually require associated storage and treatment/recycling practices. As a result, selection
of practices from these categories tends to be very interdependent.
• Deicing Runoff Treatment/Recycling. These practices consist of process systems used
to remove or recover deicing chemicals from collected deicing stormwater. This category
includes both onsite and offsite treatment and recycling systems. Some form of treatment/
recycling is usually required for any deicing runoff management system that includes
containment/collection practices, and the availability of treatment/recycling capacity is often
a constraining factor on the choice of containment/collection practices.
• Deicing Runoff System Components. Deicing stormwater system component practices
are specific technologies (for example, hardware) that may be used in multiple locations
within a deicer runoff management system. Examples in this category include various types
of storage facilities, monitoring technologies, and diversion equipment for routing deicing
stormwater to storage or treatment.

Guidelines for Selecting Individual Practices 35
Screening Approach for Selecting Individual Deicing Practices

Practices should be assessed within the context of the development of an overall integrated
deicing management strategy. An important step in this process is the initial screening of indi-
vidual practices for applicability to a particular airport. As discussed in “Implement Management
Plan,” in Chapter 2, airports, in conjunction with key stakeholders, should perform their initial
screening process by reviewing the fact sheets, identifying potentially applicable practices, and
reviewing the practices with the airport’s pollution prevention team and/or other stakeholders.
It is important to review potential practices with the pollution prevention team and other stake-
holders early so that consensus around which practices to pursue further can be obtained.
The Decision Support Tool that accompanies this guidebook can facilitate the initial screen-
ing process. The user is guided through a structured series of questions that lead to the identi-
fication of candidate practices with potential to be feasible at their facility. It follows the same
order of topics as described in the following sections. The tool presents recommendations as
combinations of complementary BMPs, which can help airports avoid evaluating BMPs that are
likely to be excluded in a subsequent phase of analysis. The recommendations lay the ground-
work for subsequent refinement, feasibility analysis, and design that consider a broader variety
of site-specific factors in much greater detail than provided by the tool.
Because of the factors involved, the process of selecting and reaching consensus on appro-
priate practices will take time, typically several months to several years, depending on the com-
plexity of the facility, operations, regulatory requirements, and required management controls.
Screening of individual practices can be performed using the fact sheets. Guidance for use and
interpretation of those fact sheets is provided in “Guidance on Use and Interpretation of the
Fact Sheets.” This subsection describes the order in which practice categories should be screened
and selected to facilitate the development of a cost-efficient, high-performance integrated deicer
management system.
In general, practices nearest the source should be screened first for applicability. The analysis
should then proceed outward in the drainage system toward the end-of-pipe practices, until all
deicing management needs can be met. Controls implemented near the source can have a signifi-
cant impact on the scale, complexity, and cost of practices that are implemented farther down-
stream from the source. Concentrated deicing runoff is subject to dilution as it moves away from
the application areas and is subject to mixing with progressively larger volumes of “clean” storm-
water. The result is a larger volume of deicing stormwater that must be managed downstream.
Computer models will often facilitate the screening process where environmental objectives
are quantitative and include numerical discharge limits or performance requirements. These
models provide a mathematical representation of the key physical, meteorological, operational,
and environmental components and processes, and allow “what if” evaluations of different prac-
tice selections and progressively aggressive combinations of practices. Such modeling tools can
be as simple as a spreadsheet balance sheet or as complicated as a detailed process model of the
entire deicing system. The level of model complexity should be tailored to match the specific
needs of the analysis as well as the availability of data for calibration. This quantitative analysis
need not be complicated in the initial screening of practices but can lay the foundation for more
sophisticated modeling in subsequent design phases.
The overall approach for screening the practice categories is described in the following
section.
Source Reduction Practices

Source reduction practices (Categories 1 and 2) should be considered first as a means to
reduce the quantity of pollutants generated by deicing activities. The practices included in

this category generally require modifications to an airport’s deicer application protocols

and equipment, which may not be practicable for some aircraft operators. Thus, only partial
implementation of source reduction practices may be possible at any given airport.
The primary concerns with many source reduction practices are the risk of interference with
airport or aircraft operations and the potential aircraft safety hazard posed by an inappropri-
ate reduction in the amount of deicing materials applied. Specific safety concerns or potential
operational issues are discussed further on the individual fact sheets. Review of each source
reduction alternative should include consideration of the conditions under which the practice
may be implemented safely and whether the practice would be appropriate given site-specific
operations, deicing conditions, and safety concerns. When considering and implementing
deicer source reduction practices, it is often advisable to coordinate among the various stake-
holders (e.g., airport operations, airport planning, air carriers, FBOs) with potentially different
perspectives.
Collection and Containment Practices

The next tier of control beyond source reduction is the implementation of collection and
containment practices close to the sources (Category 3). These practices serve to minimize the
dilution of deicing runoff with stormwater by physically isolating deicing runoff from non-
deicing stormwater. Examples of containment/collection practices include glycol recovery
vehicles and catch basin inserts. Review of containment/collection practices that may be imple-
mented near airfield pavement should include consideration of the potential for interference
with airport or aircraft operations, as well as ways to minimize theses interferences.
Options for containment/collection practices farther downstream in the airport drainage

system should be considered if “near-source” practices are not adequate to meet environmental
goals. Some airports may implement containment/collection practices within the drainage
system if it is not feasible to implement them at the source, while other airports may implement
containment/collection practices at various locations, including both at the source and at loca-
tions downstream in the storm sewer system. Implementation locations should be chosen to
optimize overall system performance. An example of containment/collection practices within
the drainage system is the use of diversion valves to route deicing runoff from aprons and
taxiways directly from a storm sewer toward storage, treatment, or recycling. Note that as col-
lection and containment practices are implemented farther downstream, options for disposal
are more limited and costly as volumes and dilution increase.
Treatment, Recycling, or Disposal

Treatment, recycling, or disposal practices should be assessed next in the process (Category 4).
The required capacity and costs for these practices is highly dependent on the types and level
of deicing source reduction and containment/collection controls implemented. Capital costs
for these practices have the potential to be significant if the volume and concentration of
deicing stormwater is not restricted by upstream controls. As the fact sheets are reviewed,
opportunities to optimize the balance between storage and treatment/recycling/disposal
should be sought along with additional practices that may be added upstream to reduce costs
for end-of-pipe controls.
Storage and Other Practices

Finally, storage and other deicing stormwater system component practices (Category 5)
should be assessed each step of the way as they may be used in conjunction with practices in
other categories.

Factors for Evaluating Practices

A variety of factors should be considered during the initial screening to identify potentially
applicable practices for meeting an airport’s long-term deicing runoff management needs.
Table 3-1 summarizes these key characteristics (other than performance, which is addressed
separately) and an assessment of each of the practices described in this guidance document.
The matrix provides subheadings within each of the characteristics to facilitate finer-scale
comparisons between similar practices. Numeric ratings associated with the practice charac-
teristics are defined in the key at the bottom of Table 3-1. These ratings represent a synthesis
of information from reports and data, where available, combined with the experience and best
professional judgment of the authors, and are presented as relative ratings. The fundamental
characteristics presented in Table 3-1 are defined as follows:
1. Proven and Demonstrated Application. Items under this heading provide measurements
of how established the practice is within the deicing industry.
a. Emerging Technology. Practices are described as either a proven technology at air-
ports, demonstrated outside of the airport industry, or currently in the research-and-
development phase.
b. Industry Application. Frequency of occurrence in deicing runoff management systems is
expressed with a relative ranking of 1 to 5, with 5 being standard practice in the industry.
2. Implementation and Operational Requirements. Items under this heading describe aspects
of responsibility, implementation, and operation of the practice.
a. Responsibility for Implementation. Implementation is described as responsibility of
either airports or aircraft operators/FBOs or both.
b. Responsibility for Operation. Operation is described as responsibility of either airports
or aircraft operators/FBOs or both.
c. Ease of Implementation. This expresses how readily the practice can generally be imple-
mented. A relative ranking of 1 to 5 is used, with 5 being easiest to implement and includes
factors such as permitting; space, utility, and infrastructure requirements; complexity of
organization coordination; and implementation time. A relative ranking of 1 to 5 is used,
with 5 being easiest to implement.
d. Labor Requirements. This provides information on the labor required to operate the
practice using a relative ranking of 1 to 5, with 1 being greatest labor requirements.
e. Training Requirements. The amount of specialized training required for implementation
is expressed using a relative ranking of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most demanding train-
ing requirements. This factor may weigh against the use of technologies where a lack of
sufficient training, including periodic refresher training, may significantly reduce their
effectiveness.
3. Advantages, Constraints, and Requisite Factors for Success. Items under this heading are
specific considerations that may help the reader differentiate between practices and deter-
mine whether a practice would be appropriate for a particular application.
a. Advantages. Describes key advantages of practice relative to other practices.
b. Constraints. Describes key limitations of practice relative to other practices.
c. Keys to Success. Describes specific considerations and requirements cited by airports
with successful implementations for achieving optimum performance of the practice.
This information may help determine applicability for a particular airport.
4. Costs and Savings. Items under this heading provide the means to perform a relative eco-
nomic cost-benefit comparison among practices.
a. Relative Capital Costs. Practices are provided a relative ranking of 1 to 5, with 1 being
highest relative potential capital costs.
b. Potential Savings. Practices are provided a relative ranking of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most
significant potential savings.

Table 3-1. Summary of characteristics of BMPs for runoff from aircraft and airfield deicing
and anti-icing operations.
Proven and Demonstrated
Application Implementation and Operational Requirements
Responsibility
Emerging Industry for Responsibility Ease of Labor Training
BMP (Fact Sheet #) Technology Application Implementation for Operation Implementation Requirements Requirements
Source Reduction
Aircraft Deicing
Product selection (#1) N 5 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 5 3
Storage and handling (#2) N 5 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 5 3
Proactive anti-icing (#3) N 4 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 5 2–3
Blending to temperature N 3 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 3 4 2

(#4)
Forced air/hybrid deicing N 2 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 3 5 1

(#5)
Physical removal (#7) N 2 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 4 3
Hangared parking (#8) N 2 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 5 5 4
Key:
Emerging Technology N Proven technology at airports
D Demonstrated outside of the airports industry
R In research & development phase
Industry Application 5 Standard practice

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown
Ease of Implementation 5 Immediate 2 Infrastructure required

4 Administrative requirements 1 Major infrastructure required
3 Capital equipment required — Unknown

Advantages, Constraints, and Requisite Factors for Success Costs and Savings
Relative Potential
Advantages Constraints Keys to Success Costs Savings
No special equipment requirements Must conform with FAA-approved Gaining aircraft operator — —
deicing plan acceptance
May offer opportunity to reduce
toxicity Limited choice of products
Addresses sources outside of Depends on adoption of practice Incorporation of practices into 4 2
containment areas by carrier and FBO staff Standard Operating Procedures
Saves money on wasted product Education of employees who
handle deicers
Reduces delays May require extra deicing crew Suitable climate 4 3
shift
Reduces Type I use under certain Accurate weather forecasting
weather conditions Must be incorporated into FAA- Suitable flight schedule
approved deicing plan
Optimizes use of aircraft deicers Logistically complicated for FBOs Predominance of milder 2–4 3–4
serving multiple carriers with temperatures where lower glycol
Reduces overall Type I use with
certain weather conditions different FAA-approved deicing ratios can be used
plans Ready source of water for blending
May require specialized equipment
Deicing equipment designed to
May undermine recycling efforts facilitate blending
Effective training and quality
assurance
Potentially significant reductions in Reduced effectiveness with ice Extensive operator training and 2–3 3–5
ADF use and heavy wet snow skill development
Specialized and extensive training Operator understanding of
required effectiveness under different
conditions
Equipment is more complex than
conventional trucks Climate that is suited to the
technology’s strengths
May reduce amounts of recyclable
glycol Procurement as part of regular
Significantly higher capital cost deicing truck replacement
than conventional trucks schedule
Reduces use of glycol to remove Only works on loose precipitation Smaller aircraft that can be easily 5 2–3
accumulated snow “broomed”
May be dangerous or impractical
on larger aircraft Dry powdery snow
Care must be taken to avoid Non-time-critical departures
damage to aircraft surfaces,
sensors, etc.
May eliminate the need for deicing Requires adequate hangar space Adequate hangar space. 1–2 4–5
Generally protects aircraft from the Anti-icing may still be required Operating schedules that allow for (new
elements Not suited to passenger operations transit directly from hangar to hangars)
takeoff.
or situations where aircraft are
loaded outside of hangar
Labor Requirements 5 No additional labor Relative Capital Costs 5 Negligible

(During Deicing Periods) 4 <1 day per week 4 < $100,000
3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000
— Unknown — Unknown
Training Requirements 5 No additional training Potential Savings 5 Significant savings

4 Basic orientation 3 Modest savings
3 Short training session 1 No savings
2 Multiple training sessions — Unknown
1 Extensive training
— Unknown


Responsibility
Hot water deicing (#9) N 2 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 5 3
Enclosed deicing buckets N 3 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 3 5 3

(#10)
Enhanced weather N 3 Airport and Airport and 3 4 2

forecasting (#11) Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs
Holdover time R None Airport and Airport and — — —

determination systems Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs
(#12)
Deicer use tracking (#13) N 3 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 4 3
Aircraft reduced N 1 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 4 5 5

operations (#14)
Low flow nozzles (#113) N 4 Carriers/FBOs Carriers/FBOs 3 5 4
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
Reduces the need for glycol under Requires suitable climate Suitable climate 5 2–3
some weather conditions (i.e., frost)
No holdover protection against
refreezing
May require anti-icing
Protects operator from spray Requires purchase of new Procurement as part of regular 2–3 2–3
Allows closer proximity of application equipment deicing truck replacement
to aircraft schedule
Facilitates greater attention to

optimum deicing by operator
Supports optimized use of deicers Coordination efforts can require Availability of service 4 2–3
substantial effort
Potential for error based on timing
of delivery of information to the
applicators
Supports optimized use of deicers Still in the R&D phase Commercial availability — —
Improves accuracy of holdover time Acceptance and financial
determination commitment by airport and carriers
Ensures that aircraft are deiced
consistent with actual conditions
Supports optimized use of deicers Requires commitment by aircraft Adoption by aircraft operators and 3–4 2–3
operators and FBOs to maintain FBOs
Supports an understanding of the
relationships between weather, and report accurate data
Effective communication and data
operations, and deicer use tracking system
Provides needed data if modeling
used to simulate deicer application
Can be used to identify inefficient
operators or equipment
Reduces deicer use when system Likely to create significant traffic Acceptance of delays by traveling 1–2 1
capacity is reached delays public
(incl.
Improves ability to avoid Traffic delays may affect other Acceptance by aircraft operators delays)
environmental noncompliance during airports, regional, and national and FAA
severe winter storms traffic
Likely to result in significant costs
to aircraft operators
Consistent reduction in glycol use Tied to deicing trucks using this Adoption by aircraft operators and 4 3
technology FBOs
Minor initial capital investment and
maintenance Widespread use in deicing truck
fleet

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Airfield Pavement Deicing

Product selection (#16) N 4 Airport Airport 4 5 3
Storage and handling (#17) N 4 Airport Airport 4 5 3
PDM application N 3 Airport Airport 3–4 4 2

technology (#18)
Heated pavement (#19) R None Airport Airport 1 — –
Physical removal (#20) N 5 Airport Airport 5 4–5 5
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
May offer opportunity to reduce Must conform with FAA-approved Acceptance by airfield 3–4 3–5
toxicity deicing plan maintenance staff
Limited choice of products Acceptance by aircraft operators
Concerns with catalytic oxidation, Acceptance of new operating
cadmium corrosion, airfield procedures
infrastructure complicate selection
of acceptable deicers
New application equipment may
be required
Saves money on wasted product New handling and storage Education of front line staff who 5 2
equipment may be required handle deicers
Addresses sources outside of
containment areas
Optimizes deicer use and airfield Requires specialized application Accurate and timely data on 2–3 3–4
friction equipment and instrumentation airfield pavement conditions
Equipment investment may not be Adoption of the process by airfield
worthwhile at small airports maintenance
Theoretically eliminates pavement Still in R&D phase Demonstration at an operational 1–2 —
deicer use level.
Optimizes deicer use Effectiveness in reducing PDM use Education and training of airfield 5 1–2
is limited to certain types of maintenance staff and equipment
Already a common industry practice
weather or deicing activity operators
Most effective with dry snow

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Containment/Collection
Centralized deicing N 2 Airport or Carriers/FBOs 1 1 1
facilities (#21) Carriers
Apron collection systems N 3 Airport Airport 2 3 2

(#22)
Glycol collection vehicles N 2 Airport, carriers, Airport, carriers, 3 1 1

(#23) or FBOs or FBOs
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
Highest reported performance of Reduces operational flexibility Acceptance by major aircraft 1–3 —
available glycol collection practices afforded aircraft operators by at- operators at the airport
Improves availability of gates gate deicing Aircraft operator appreciation of
Requires adequate space in benefits of improved gate
Opportunity to collect relatively high
concentration runoff appropriate location(s) on the availability
airfield Opportunities for retrofitting
Reduces volumes of deicing runoff
that must be stored and treated. Requires coordination among existing pavement areas
different deicing crews operating at
Eliminates deicing impacts on Adequate sizing to ensure capture
the same facility of runoff driven by jet blast and
loading operations
Unpopular among many aircraft overspray
Removes deicer traffic from terminal operators at nonhub locations
and ramp areas. Control of subsurface drainage
Typically involves a large airfield from pad
Facilitates glycol recycling construction project
Effective traffic and queue
management system
Coordination among users of the
deicing facility
Motivation for glycol recycling
Minimizes impact of collection on Requires storm sewer system Suitable storm sewer layout 1–3 1
existing operations modifications Adequate room for storage
Allows operational flexibility of at- May not work well where storm facilities
gate deicing sewers are “leaky” Practical disposal/treatment of
May be implemented selectively to May require large storage capacity collected runoff
supplement other collection practices for collected runoff Opportunity to incorporate
Land requirements are minimal May increase traffic around ramps collection system components in
planned apron construction
May result in lower collected
deicer concentrations than other projects
collection practices
Adaptable to existing deicing Require effective blockage of Blocking storm sewer inlets to 3 1
locations and operations storm sewer inlets to achieve facilitate runoff collection
reasonable collection efficiency
Only requirements are storm sewer Operator training with a focus on
inlet blocks and storage facility Increase traffic on the ramp the runoff collection objectives
Collects runoff at relatively high May be susceptible to clogging Sufficient number of vehicles for
concentrations with snow and slush the deicing area(s) and operations
May be used to supplement other Collected runoff must be hauled to Sufficient hauling and storage
collection BMPs storage and treatment capacity to prevent flooding or
Capable of “scrubbing” pavement to overflows
meet stringent environmental Sealing of apron pavement joints
requirements

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Block-and-pump systems N 2 Airport, carriers, Airport, carriers, 3 1 1
(#24) or FBOs or FBOs
Airfield drainage N 3 Airport Airport 1 5 4

planning/design/retrofit
(#25)
Deicer-laden snow N 2 Airport Airport or FBOs 2–3 3 2

management (#26)
Conveyance/Storage
Portable tanks (#27) N 3 Airport Airport 3–4 4 4
Modular tanks (#28) N 2 Airport Airport 2–3 4–5 4
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
Adaptable to existing deicing Layout of storm sewers must be Suitable storm sewer serving 3–4 1
locations and operations suitable deicing areas
Simple to implement using sewer May require storm sewer system Availability of adequate storage
balloons modifications Availability of adequate treatment
May be used to supplement other May not work well where integrity capacity for dilute runoff
collection BMPs of storm sewers is poor
May require large storage capacity
for collected runoff
Must have equipment to pump out
blocked sewers
Must have adequate pumping and
hauling capacity to prevent
flooding
Collected runoff must be hauled to
storage and treatment
Potential opportunity to reduce Typically only practical as an Consideration of possibilities early 1–3 —
fugitive deicing runoff loads element of an airfield construction in the planning and design phase
project of airfield projects
May provide reduction in some non-
deicing runoff pollutants Must be consistent with all FAA
requirements for airfield design
Opportunities depend on local
facility layout and drainage
patterns
Improves collection/containment Increases complexity of snow Acceptance and adoption of 2–3 1
performance plowing and management practices by airfield maintenance
operations staff
Reduced transport of deicers out of
containment areas Requires separate area for deicer- Suitable area for storage of deicer-
laden snow storage laden snow
May require snow melters where Capacity for treating deicer-laden
space is limited snowmelt from storage area
Requires change to Airport Snow
Management Plan
Small footprint Height restrictions may limit Storage requirements can be met 4 1
acceptable locations with small units
Storage can be placed where it is
needed Tanks are typically limited to
~20,000 gallons
Can be mobilized on short notice
Additional storage can be readily
added as needed
Can be sized to meet needs Height restrictions may limit Suitable location 3 1
Less expensive than permanent acceptable locations
tanks May require covers
Construction time is relatively short Suitable location required

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Basins (#29) N 3 Airport Airport 1 5 3
Permanent tanks (#30) N 2 Airport Airport 1 5 4
Manual diversion valves N 3 Airport Airport 3 4 3

(#31)
Automated diversion N 2 Airport Airport 4 5 2–3

valves (#31)
Online monitoring N 3 Airport Airport 2 4 2

technology (#32)
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
Relatively cost-effective storage Land requirements Suitable land available 2–3 1
Can also serve stormwater detention FAA discourages open water Wildlife attraction issues fully
function features near airfields addressed
Odors may be an issue Address FAA concerns
Can pose wildlife attraction hazard Appropriate site-specific
containment to address
Subject to storage volume
groundwater infiltration and deicer
increases and dilution from direct
exfiltration
precipitation
Provisions for period maintenance
(solids removal)
No odor issues Most costly form of non-portable Suitable land available 2–3 1
storage
No wildlife attraction issues Accurate sizing
Reduced potential for dilution from Land requirements Evaluating potential process
precipitation Height restrictions advantages of multiple tanks
Contents may be mixed for uniform Geotechnical restrictions Provisions for mixing contents
discharge concentrations More difficult to remove solids than
Lower maintenance than ponds open storage
Simple operation and maintenance Requires operator during Appropriate valve selection 2–3 1
potentially busy periods Reliable and effective valve seals
Well-defined standard operating
procedures
Reduced manpower requirements Increased complexity Appropriate valve selection 3–4 1
Can be integrated into SCADA Capital costs can be high for large Reliable and effective valve seals
system for centralized operation of pipe diameters
Cost-benefit analysis for capital
diversions throughout system versus operating cost
Provides real-time information on Instrumentation is sophisticated Clear need to detect deicing 3–4 3–4
TOC, or other surrogate parameters constituents in real time
Installations require protective
Can be interfaced with automated housing and utilities Experienced or trainable operator
diversion valves to achieve fine-scale with troubleshooting skill
Use for compliance monitoring
separation of higher and lower
requires gaining acceptance by Clearly defined operating
concentration flows
regulators conditions and ranges
Allows operation of collection, Clear understanding of instrument
diversion, or treatment when facility
accuracy
is not staffed
Regular maintenance and
May reduce storage and treatment calibration
requirements
Recording capabilities provides fine-
scale data record of runoff
characteristics, including flows and
loads

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Catch basin inserts/valves N 3 Airport Airport 3 4 3
(#33)
Pumping Systems (#114) N 3 Airport Airport 2 4 3
Treatment/Recycling
Publicly owned treatment N 3 Airport POTW 2 4 2
works discharge (#34)
Anaerobic fluidized bed N 1 Airport Airport 1 1 1

reactor (#35)
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
Prevent deicer-laden runoff from Must be custom fabricated for Well-defined drainage patterns in 3–4 1
entering storm sewers prior to be each catch basin deicing areas
picked up by glycol collection
Depend on manual operation Proper sizing to suit catch basin
vehicles and drainage area
Can promote flooding on the apron
if not operated correctly Effective operator training
Requires catch basin structures be Incorporation of practices into
in good condition Standard Operating Procedures
Requires adequate collection and
hauling capacity
Overcomes limitations of gravity flow Requires potentially large electrical Proper sizing of pump capacity 2–4 3
(must follow hydraulic gradient) service Proper maintenance and
Reduce the size and depth of May require emergency generator monitoring of pumps and control
conveyance pipe for backup power equipment
Can be used to control the rate of Design consideration for runoff
discharge events that exceed the design
capacity of the pumping system
Simplest treatment alternative Requires POTW with adequate POTW with adequate available 3–4 1
Relatively low capital cost available treatment capacity treatment capacity
Requires separate industrial Address all POTW operator
discharge permit concerns regarding treatability of
Likely to require onsite storage deicing runoff
and metering of discharges to POTW operating problems may
sewer cause reduction or elimination of
Annual discharge fees may be discharge authorization
high Understanding POTW’s projected
long-term increases in discharge
Long-term cost effectiveness
dependent upon projected fees
increases in discharge fees
Discharge authorization may be
rescinded in the future
Low operating costs Not well suited to produce effluent Requirement for treatment of 1–2 1
with BOD concentrations less than relatively concentrated runoff
Treats deicer additives
100 mg/L
Excess methane can be used for Segregated and collection of
Some solids dewatering and concentrated runoff
other purposes
annual disposal is required
Can be shut down and started back Experienced or trainable operator
up in as little as 5 days Startup time may be too long for Clearly defined operating
applications where very
Relatively small footprint conditions and ranges prior to
intermittent treatment is needed
design considering deicer use and
Independence from outside market weather conditions
forces or costs

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Aerated gravel bed N 1 Airport Airport 1 1 1
treatment (#36)
Moving bed biofilm reactor D 1 Airport Airport 1 1 1

(#37)
Activated sludge (#38) N 1 Airport Airport 1 1 1
Passive facultative N 1 Airport Airport 1 2 1

treatment systems (#39)
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown


Relative Potential
Low effluent BOD concentrations Large footprint Requirement for high level of 1–2 1
treatment
Can operate at ambient temperatures Efficiency depends on operating
within limited ranges of water Available land
No biosolids processing or disposal
typically required temperature and influent BOD
Moderate winter temperatures
concentrations and loadings
Relatively straightforward operational Experienced or trainable operator
requirements
Clearly defined operating
Independence from outside market conditions and ranges prior to
forces or costs design considering deicer use and
weather conditions
Effluent BOD is 20 mg/L or less Relatively high operating costs Requirement for high level of 2 1
treatment
Well-suited for treatment in cold Requires oxygen inputs and
temperatures sludge disposal Best suited for steady BOD load,
Relatively small footprint No systems in operation solely but accommodates variable
influent loads
Independence from outside market managing airport runoff
forces or costs Experienced or trainable operator
conditions and ranges prior to
weather conditions
Well-understood process with readily Relatively high operating costs Requirement for high level of 1–2 1
available operator pool treatment
Requires oxygen inputs
Effluent BOD is 30 mg/L or less Requires sludge disposal Best suited to situations with
steady long-term BOD load
Independence from outside market Requires reseeding of bacteria
forces or costs every season Experienced or trainable operator
conditions and ranges prior to
weather conditions
Low maintenance Significant land requirements Available land 2–3 1
Lower operating costs and energy To avoid pumping, location must Best suited to low strength runoff
requirements than other treatment be down-gradient from sources of Pilot testing
systems runoff to be treated
Minimize wildlife attraction through
No routine biosolids processing May pose wildlife attraction hazard proper design and choice of
Straightforward operating Not well suited to high influent vegetation
requirements BOD concentrations
Experienced or trainable operator
Can operate at ambient temperatures Performance may be highly
variable conditions and ranges prior to
Independence from outside market
forces or costs design considering deicer use and
weather conditions

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown


Responsibility
Glycol recovery (#41) N 2 Airport Airport or vendor 1–2 1 1
Aerated lagoons (#115) N 1 Airport Airport 1 1 1
Key:

4 Widespread
3 Common
2 Limited
1 Rare
— Unknown

In interpreting Table 3-1, it must be recognized that generalizations have been required to

facilitate direct comparison in this summary. The characteristics of a practice may vary signifi-
cantly among different implementations, depending on site-specific conditions. Further detail
and discussion of these site-specific considerations and factors is provided within individual
practice-specific fact sheets.
It should also be noted that the factors in Table 3.1 are conceptually represented in the
Decision Support Tool that accompanies this guidebook. However, the evaluation and scoring
parameters used in the tool are defined at a significantly higher level of resolution and detail
than was required by the decision logic embodied in the tool.
Reported performance data for various practices are summarized in Tables 3.2 and 3.3.
Because the performance metrics are very different, available performance information for
source control, collection, and containment practices is summarized in Table 3.2, while per-
formance information for treatment, recycling, and disposal practices are summarized in
Table 3.3.

Relative Potential
Productive use of spent glycol Requires collection of runoff Use of PG-based aircraft deicing 1–2 2–3
containing only PG-based ADF fluids in collection areas targeted
Value of recovered glycol can help
offset collection program costs for recycling
Cost-effectiveness generally
requires glycol concentrations Consistent volume of runoff with
Typically contracted out to specialty
greater than 3–5% 3–5% glycol concentration.
provider
Potential single source provider of Cost-effectiveness requires some Proximity and access to
minimum glycol use processing facility
equipment and system operation
May require onsite processing to Understanding of need for pre-
facilitate economics of offsite treatment
transport
Understanding effect of market
Requires access to ultimate value of recycled glycol on cost
processing/reuse facility effectiveness
May require pretreatment and Well-thought out contract
solids disposal provisions with service provider
May require heating of stormwater
Straightforward operation Potentially large volumes and land Managing bird attractant issues 2 1
areas required
Simple construction and simple Onsite mixing of nutrient solution
mechanical equipment Matching nutrient feed to nutrient to meet needs based on influent
needs can be challenging load
Lower cost than other biological
treatment systems Surface area can be a bird
attractant
Independence from outside market
forces or costs Suspended bacteria can be
washed out during high flow
Bacterial activity slows in cold
temperatures

3 2–3 days per week 3 $100,000–$1,000,000
2 1 FTE 2 $1,000,000–$10,000,000
1 >2 FTEs 1 >$10,000,000

— Unknown
Common metrics for quantifying the performance of source control, collection, and contain-
ment practices are mass balance–based and consist of percent reduction in deicer application,
percent capture of applied deicers, or percent discharge of applied deicers. (A practical metric
of practice performance is compliance with regulatory requirements, but because requirements
are very site-specific and not necessarily tied to a single practice, this metric is not suitable in
this generalized discussion.) Computationally, these can be described as follows:
Deicer usage with source reduction BMP

Percent reduction in deicer application = × 100
Deicer usage without source reduction BMP
Deicer in collected runoff

Percent capture of applied deicer = × 100
Deicer usage
Deicer in stormwater discharges

Percent discharge of applied deicer = × 100
Deicer usage in stormwater drainage areas

Table 3-2. Summary of reported mass balance performance metrics for source control
and containment/collection practices.
a
Practice (Fact Sheet #) Performance Comments
Source Controls % Load Reduction
Aircraft Deicing
b
Product selection (#1) ~15 Based on product literature on the BOD5 of Type I
ADFs currently used in the U.S.
Storage and handling (#2) — No data
Proactive anti-icing (#3) — No data
Blending to temperature (#4) 18–50 Very dependent on local climate
Forced air/hybrid deicing (#5) 10–85 High end only attainable under ideal conditions
Physical removal (#7) — No data
Hangared parking (#8) ≤90 Based on estimated Type IV requirements
Hot water deicing (#9) ≤90 Based on estimated Type IV requirements
Enclosed deicing buckets (#10) — No data
Enhanced weather forecasting — No data
(#11)
Holdover time determination 80 (Type IV only) Applies only to Type IV use; based on limited testing
systems (#12) in Montreal
Deicer use tracking (#13) 80 (Type IV only) Based on limited testing in Montreal
Reduced aircraft operations (#14) — No data
Low flow nozzles (#113) — No data
Airfield Pavement Deicing
b
Product selection (#16) 60–84 (fluids) Based on product literature on COD expressed as
60–90 (solids) gO2/g product. Consideration of possibly reduced
application rates is not included.
Storage and handling (#17) — No data
PDM application technology (#18) ≤20 Based on reports from Munich Airport
Heated pavement (#19) — No data
Physical removal (#20) — No data
Containment/Collection % Capture
Centralized deicing facilities (#21) 44–86 High end attainable only under ideal conditions
Apron collection systems (#22) 10–65 Very dependent on local climate and apron drainage
infrastructure
Glycol collection vehicles (#23) 23–48 Very dependent on local climate
Block-and-pump systems (#24) 20–35 Very dependent on local climate and apron drainage
infrastructure
Airfield drainage planning/ — No data
design/retrofit (#25)
Deicer-laden snow management 0–11 Based on USGS report from one airport (Corsi et al.,
(#26) 2006). Very dependent on local conditions and
operations.
a
Values shown represent extremes of reported or estimated performance from available information from a limited number
of airports. No assumption should be made regarding the distribution of performance metrics between these extremes.
b
Benchmarked against available products with the highest BOD content: propylene glycol-based Type I ADF and
urea-based pavement deicer.

Table 3-3. Summary of performance metrics for treatment/disposal/recycling practices.
Influent Effluent Influent Water Resilience

Practice (Fact Concentrations Concentrations Temperature to Shock Waste Residuals
Sheet #) (COD mg/L) (COD mg/L) Range Loading Generation Comments
Offsite Treatment
POTW discharge Dependent on Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Not Applicable POTW may restrict or prohibit
(#34) capacity of Applicable discharges during wet weather
POTW and events and limit large
contributions fluctuations in loading
from other
dischargers
Glycol recovery 10,000–250,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Not Applicable Typically only cost-effective if
(#41) Applicable vendor is receiving 200,000–
300,000 of deicing fluid
feedstock (1%–25% PG)
annually
Onsite Treatment
Anaerobic fluidized 2,700–80,000 75–100 0–32ºC H Biosolids (low) Reactors require buildings that
bed reactor (#35) (32–90ºF) are 30–35 ft high
Biogas
Aerated gravel bed <10,000 25–100 5–35ºC M Biosolids Large area required
treatment (#36) (41–95ºF) (intermittent)
Moving bed biofilm <2,000 10–20 5–35ºC M Biosolids Requires consistent influent
reactor (#37) (41–95ºF) loading
Activated sludge <10,000 10–30 5–35ºC M Biosolids Requires consistent influent

(#38) (41–95ºF) loading
Passive facultative <1,000 <30 5–35ºC L–M Biosolids Large area required and some
treatment systems (41–95ºF) (intermittent) applications include open
(#39) water
Glycol recovery – 10,000–85,000 Effluent: 10–100 4–29ºC M–H Pretreatment Pretreatment filtration is
Reverse osmosis Reject: 50,000– (40–85ºF) wastes, i.e., solids, typically required
(#41) 100,000 (5–10% PG) hydrocarbons
Glycol recovery – 10,000–300,000 Effluent: 50–1,000 4–29ºC M–H Pretreatment Potential modular design
Mechanical vapor Concentrate: (40–85ºF) wastes, i.e., solids,
recompression (#41) 400,000–600,000 hydrocarbons
(40–60% PG)
Glycol recovery – 300,000–600,000 Distillate: 5,000– 4–29ºC M–H Distillate stream Distillation column building
Distillation (#41) 25,000 (40–85ºF) height ranges from 20–30 feet,
Concentrate: and technology is typically
>990,000 (99% PG) implemented along with other
technologies
Aerated lagoons <5,000 30–100 5–35ºC L–M Biosolids Requires nutrient and oxygen
(#115) (41–95ºF) addition
L=low; M=medium; and H=high

The accuracy of performance characterizations is limited by a variety of factors, including

the inherent variability in the conditions surrounding the deicing process. In many cases,
available data is representative of an airport’s deicing stormwater management system as a
whole, rather than of a single component of the system. It is especially challenging to assess
performance of source control practices, which often requires comparing how much deicer
was actually used with the new practice against estimates of how much would have been used
if past practices had still been in place.
Available performance data on individual deicing practices are generally limited, and for most
of the practices in Table 3-2, the information is based on data from just a few airports. In some
cases, the data represent operations of a practice at multiple facilities over multiple seasons,
while in other instances performance is based on a limited number of tests or a narrow range
of deicing, weather, or operational conditions. The table provides minimum and maximum
reported performance purely as the limits of reported data. There is no statistical basis for the
source data, and under no circumstances should this information be interpreted as what could
confidently be achieved at another airport. Instead, the information is intended to reflect the
general magnitude of performance that has been reported at airports where performance data
have been collected and provided. Any comparisons should be made with this understanding.
The performance of treatment, recycling, and disposal practices is expressed in inherently
different metrics than source control, collection, and containment practices, as reflected in
Table 3-3. Performance of these technologies is expressed in terms of operational character-
istics, such as influent and effluent concentration ranges, which reflect both applicability and
pollutant removal; waste generation; and resilience to influent shock loading.
Importance of Training
Training is critically important to the success and effectiveness of implemented BMPs. Train-
ing should include airport and tenant staff directly responsible for operation and maintenance
of the BMPs, as well as staff whose activities may influence the operation and performance of
those BMPs. Training should be conducted prior to the start of every deicing season to remind
staff of the deicing program components and ensure they are aware of the current practices.
There will often be several tiers of training tailored to the levels of staff involvement. For
example, operators of aircraft deicing BMPs will receive specialized training from the organiza-
tions that conduct these operations. Airfield deicing BMPs will typically be covered in train-
ing by the airport of staff who are responsible for maintaining runways and taxiways during
wintertime conditions. Operation of onsite recycling or treatment systems typically requires
especially extensive training. Airports often provide generalized training for airport and tenant
staff whose jobs are peripherally associated with deicing as part of environmental program
awareness training.
A valuable training resource is the ACRP WebResource 3 Airport Stormwater Management
Library & Training Materials website (https://crp.trb.org/acrp0261/) which contains intro-
ductory and advanced training courses on airport deicing runoff management. These courses
can be used as is or tailored to an airport’s specific training needs.
Guidance on Use and Interpretation

of the Fact Sheets
Use and Limitations of the Fact Sheets
Deicing fact sheets described in Chapter 4 describe the essential characteristics of the spec-
trum of available “tools” in the deicing runoff management toolbox and facilitate initial

consideration and screening. The information included within these fact sheets was compiled
from a variety of sources, including published literature and research, unpublished “gray-
literature,” surveys from a cross-section of airports and vendors, and the research team’s collective
experience in developing and implementing deicing runoff management systems.
It is essential that relevant FAA regulations and requirements are considered when assess-
ing the applicability of the practices and technologies represented in the fact sheets, especially
as they relate to safety. FAA’s Regulations & Policies website is a comprehensive and up-to-date
resource for this information. Practical guidance on which regulations and requirements
apply to planning and implementing the types of projects and activities described in the fact
sheets may be found in a variety of ACRP publications, for example:
ACRP Report 81: Winter Design Storm Factor Determination for Airports
ACRP Report 96: Apron Planning and Design Guidebook
ACRP Report 99: Guidance for Treatment of Airport Stormwater Containing Deicers
ACRP Report 113: Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-the-Fence Operations
ACRP Report 123: A Guidebook for Airport Winter Operations
ACRP Report 125: Balancing Airport Stormwater and Bird Hazard Management
The fact sheets should be used with a clear understanding of the following:
• Aircraft safety. The purpose of deicing is to ensure safe aircraft operations. Safety is par-
amount and will always take precedence over other considerations in practice selection,
implementation, and operation. This guidance document and the fact sheets are presented
from an environmental compliance perspective, with the explicit assumption that the pre-
dominant priority is understood to be safety, and that this topic is thoroughly described in
various facility and operator-specific policy and procedures documents.
Deicing personnel must make deicing decisions and implement deicing procedures that
are conservative with respect to aircraft safety and that sometimes require overriding deicing
practices. The reader is encouraged to recognize and weigh the benefits of particular practices
with respect to aircraft safety risks, and to understand that conservative deicing procedures
required to ensure safety have the potential to reduce the performance levels of certain prac-
tices. As such, it may be advisable to incorporate a margin of safety in planning analyses to
allow for the likelihood of less-than-optimal performance.
• Site-specific challenges. Site-specific conditions tend to define the applicability, implemen-
tation, performance, and cost of deicing practices. The significant variation in approaches
taken among successful airport deicing runoff management programs illustrates the chal-
lenge in providing generally applicable guidelines for airports. For this reason, the fact sheets
should be viewed as a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, detailed site-specific analysis
of deicing runoff management needs and solutions.
The reader is cautioned that an attempt to develop a deicing runoff control system based
solely on the information in the fact sheets and without a detailed analysis of site-specific
conditions by an analyst with aviation experience in this specialized technical area will almost
certainly lead to significant errors.
• Compatibility of components. The components of a deicer runoff control system have inter-
dependences. As such the compatibility of an individual technology or technique must be
assessed in relation to the other deicer management components being considered.
• Emerging technologies. The available information for practices still in the development
or field-testing phases and are not commercially available is necessarily limited. Fact
sheets for practices under development have been included to provide information on
emerging technologies and the direction that innovation is taking within the deicer man-
agement field.

Interpretation of the Fact Sheets

An outline of the general fact sheet format is provided below, with a description of the
information provided in the fact sheet and guidance for interpretation of that information.
1. Description. The first section of the fact sheet introduces the practice and provides general
information about what the technology or practice is and how it works. The information is
presented in the following subsections.
Purpose. Describes the function of the practice with respect to deicing stormwater man-
agement, including source control, collection, containment, storage, or treatment.
Technology. Provides details on the principles and technologies surrounding the practice,
including concepts and mechanisms, and design or implementation options.
Documented performance. Presents reported performance data, if available, or describes
means for assessing the performance of the practice at an individual airport. Where relevant,
examples of known installations at airports are provided. The reader is encouraged to review
the performance data in context with the following qualifying information:
– Performance data from manufacturers may be based on ideal conditions and may repre-
sent an upper estimate of the practice’s performance capability.
– Performance data from individual airports may reflect highly site-specific conditions.
– Performance data from field tests may represent a limited range of deicing and opera-
tional conditions. Field test data may not reflect performance of the practice at an opera-
tional level.
– Performance of practices is not additive; the aggregate performance of a system of
practices will not be the sum of the expected performance of the individual elements.
2. Implementation Considerations. This section of the fact sheet provides guidance to help
airports assess whether a practice may be appropriate for its deicer management system
and presents challenges and keys to success associated with implementing the practice.
This section may not encompass all of the site-specific challenges and considerations that
can impact selection of a practice, but it does discuss general considerations for screening
purposes. The implementation considerations are presented in the following subsections.
Applicability assessment. Presents information to help assess whether a practice is poten-
tially appropriate for a particular site or deicer management system.
Regulatory considerations. It should be explicitly recognized that all of the practices
described are intended to support reductions in discharges of deicing-related pollutants to
achieve compliance with facility-specific CWA requirements. This heading addresses other
regulatory requirements or implications associated with the practice.
Planning and design considerations. Presents specific guidelines, suggestions, and require-
ments for the successful design and implementation of the practice. This subsection is
intended to provide key considerations and is not representative of the complete design
process.
Integration with other practices. Provides examples of how the practice may be coordinated
and used together with other practices as part of an overall deicing stormwater management
system.
Operation and maintenance considerations. Presents general maintenance issues and
operational requirements associated with use of the practice.
3. Costs. This section of the fact sheet discusses primary cost elements associated with each
practice, including capital cost items and operations and maintenance cost items. This sec-
tion is intended not to be all-inclusive but to give airports an idea about the primary cost
elements that could be expected if the practice were to be implemented. In most instances,
relative cost descriptions have been provided. Where specific costs of equipment and other
well-defined elements are available, representative ranges have been provided to give the

reader as sense of the magnitude of costs. These cost numbers should not be used for planning
purposes without verifying current local costs. The following issues should be recognized in
interpreting the cost information in the fact sheets:
– Costs are highly variable, even for similar practices and systems, depending on site-specific
conditions, including nature and scale of flight and airfield operations, region, climate,
existing stormwater collection system characteristics, opportunities for integration with
other practices, treatment goals and effluent limits, and other compliance requirements.
– Much of the available industry cost data is based on a limited number of individual
airport reports or manufacturers’ data, which may not be representative of conditions
and costs incurred with the implementation of the same practice at another airport.
Reported costs for practices are frequently combined with costs for packages of practices,
or with overall costs of capital improvement projects (for example, ramp rehabilitation).
– Specific cost data were available only for some practices or elements of practices, pre
cluding a meaningful quantitative comparison among all potential practices.
– The relative cost data indicated reflects the installation or incorporation of a particular
practice under typical airport conditions. Airports may incur significantly higher or lower
costs or efficiencies based on site-specific conditions.

CHAPTER 4
Deicing Fact Sheets
This chapter describes the accompanying compendium of fact sheets prepared for each of the
identified deicing practices. They are organized into the five categories: aircraft deicing source
reduction; airfield pavement deicing source reduction; deicing runoff containment/collection;
deicing runoff treatment/recycling; and deicing runoff system components.
It should be noted that the status of the fact sheets is shown in parentheses relative to the
original edition of this report.
It is essential that relevant FAA regulations and requirements are considered when assessing
the applicability of the practices and technologies represented in the fact sheets, especially as
they relate to safety. FAA’s Regulations & Policies website is a comprehensive and up-to-date
resource for this information. Practical guidance on which regulations and requirements apply
to planning and implementing the types of projects and activities described in the fact sheets
may be found in a variety of ACRP publications, for example:
ACRP Report 81: Winter Design Storm Factor Determination for Airports
ACRP Report 96: Apron Planning and Design Guidebook
ACRP Report 99: Guidance for Treatment of Airport Stormwater Containing Deicers
ACRP Report 113: Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-the-Fence Operations
ACRP Report 123: A Guidebook for Airport Winter Operations
ACRP Report 125: Balancing Airport Stormwater and Bird Hazard Management
Special note on costs: Where available, specific costs of equipment and other well-defined
elements are provided in the fact sheets to give the reader a sense of the magnitude of costs.
These estimated cost numbers should not be used for planning purposes without verifying
current local costs.
Aircraft Deicing Source Reduction

The purpose of these practices is to reduce the amount of pollutants generated by aircraft
deicing activities, either by using products with reduced environmental impacts or by reduc-
ing the amounts of deicing products required to achieve and maintain safe flight operations.
It should be noted that U.S. aircraft operators must obtain FAA Flight Standards approval for
certain proposed source reduction fact sheets prior to selection and implementation.
Fact Sheet 1. Aircraft-Deicing Product Selection (Updated)
Fact Sheet 2. Storage and Handling of Aircraft-Deicing Materials (Updated)
Fact Sheet 3. Proactive Anti-Icing (Updated)
Fact Sheet 4. Blending to Temperature (Updated)
62

Deicing Fact Sheets 63
Fact Sheet 5. Forced Air/Fluid Deicing (Updated)

Fact Sheet 6. Infrared Deicing Technology (Retired)
Fact Sheet 7. Physical Removal (Updated)
Fact Sheet 8. Hangared Parking (No Change)
Fact Sheet 9. Hot Water Deicing (Updated)
Fact Sheet 10. Enclosed Deicing Bucket (Updated)
Fact Sheet 11. Enhanced Weather Forecasting (Updated)
Fact Sheet 12. Holdover Time Determination Systems (Updated)
Fact Sheet 13. Aircraft Deicer Use Tracking (Updated)
Fact Sheet 14. Aircraft Reduced Operations (Updated)
Fact Sheet 15. Tempered Steam Technology (Retired)
Fact Sheet 113. Low Flow Nozzles (New)
Airfield Pavement Deicing Source Reduction

The purpose of these fact sheets is to reduce the amount of pollutants generated by airfield
pavement–deicing activities, either by use of products with reduced environmental impacts or
by reduction in the amounts of deicing products required to achieve and maintain safe flight
operations.
Fact Sheet 16. Airfield Pavement–Deicing Product Selection (Updated)
Fact Sheet 17. Storing and Handling of Airfield Deicing/Anti-Icing Agents (Updated)
Fact Sheet 18. Pavement Deicer Materials Application Technology (Updated)
Fact Sheet 19. Heated Pavement (Updated)
Fact Sheet 20. Airfield Deicers—Physical Removal (Updated)
Deicing Runoff Containment/Collection

The role of these fact sheets is to provide methods for isolating, collecting, and containing
storm water runoff from deicing activities. In most instances, these practices are implemented
to address aircraft deicing runoff.
Fact Sheet 21. Centralized Deicing Facilities (Updated)
Fact Sheet 22. Apron Collection Systems (Updated)
Fact Sheet 23. Glycol Collection Vehicles (Updated)
Fact Sheet 24. Block-and-Pump Systems (Updated)
Fact Sheet 25. Airfield Drainage Planning/Design/Retrofit (Updated)
Fact Sheet 26. Deicer-Laden Snow Management (Updated)
Deicing Runoff System Components

These technologies represent components of systems that may be implemented in various
locations, and serving different purposes, in any given system.
Fact Sheet 27. Portable Tanks (Frac Tanks) (Updated)
Fact Sheet 28. Modular Tanks (Updated)
Fact Sheet 29. Basins (formerly “Ponds”) (Updated)
Fact Sheet 30. Permanent Tanks (Updated)
Fact Sheet 31. Manual and Automated Diversion Valves (Updated)
Fact Sheet 32. Online (formerly “Real-Time”) Monitoring Technology (Updated)
Fact Sheet 33. Catch Basin Inserts/Valves (Updated)
Fact Sheet 114. Pumping Systems (New)

Deicing Runoff Treatment/Recycling

These practices provide alternatives for disposing of deicing runoff that has been collected and
contained and is not suitable for controlled discharge to receiving waters.
Fact Sheet 34. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (formerly “POTW”) Discharge (Updated)
Fact Sheet 35. Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor (Updated)
Fact Sheet 36. Aerated Gravel Bed Treatment (Updated)
Fact Sheet 37. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (Updated)
Fact Sheet 38. Activated Sludge (Updated)
Fact Sheet 39. Passive Facultative (formerly “Natural”) Treatment Systems (Updated)
Fact Sheet 40. Membrane Filtration (Retired)
Fact Sheet 41. Glycol Recovery (Updated)
Fact Sheet 115. Aerated Lagoons (New)

References
APS Aviation Inc. 2005. Data Collection and Analysis to Advance the Development of an Airport Deicer Man-
agement System (ADMS) Model. Volume 1, Fluid Tracked Away Data; Volume 2, Fluid Drip Rate Data;
and Volume 3, Fluid Blown Away Data. Transport Canada, May.
Bedient, P. B., and W. C. Huber. 1989. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bicknell, B. R., J. C. Imhoff, J. L. Kittle Jr., A. S. Donigian Jr., and R. C. Johanson. 1997. Hydrological Simula-
tion Program—FORTRAN, User’s Manual for Version 11. EPA/600/R-97/080. National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bras, R. L. 1990. Hydrology: An Introduction to Hydrologic Science. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Chapra, S. C., G. J. Pelletier, and H. Tao. 2007. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for Simulating River and
Stream Water Quality, Version 2.07: Documentation and Users Manual. Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing Dept., Tufts University, Medford, MA.
Cole, T. M., and E. M. Buchak. 1995. CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged, Hydrodynamic
and Water Quality Model, Version 2.0 User Manual. Instruction Report EL-95-1. NTIS No. AD A298 467.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Corsi, S. R., Geis, S. W., Loyo-Rosales, J. E., Rice, C. P., Sheesley, R. I., Failey, G. G., et al. 2006. Characterization
of Aircraft Deicer and Anti-Icer Components and Toxicity in Airport Snowbanks and Snowmelt Runoff.
Environmental Science and Technology, 40(10), 3195–3202.
Huber, W. C., and R. E. Dickinson. 1992. Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: User’s Manual. EPA/600/
3-88/001a. Environmental Research Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Mein, R. G., and C. L. Larson. 1973. Modeling Infiltration During a Steady Rain. Water Resources Research,
9(2), pp. 384–394.
Revitt, D. M. and P. Worrall. 2003. Low Temperature Biodegradation of Airport De-icing Fluids. Water Science
and Technology, 48(9), pp. 103–111.
Revitt, D. M., H. Garelick, and P. Worrall. 2002. Pollutant Biodegradation Potentials on Airport Surfaces. Global
Solutions for Urban Drainage, Proc., Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainage, September,
Portland, OR.
Rossman, L. A. 2004. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual. EPA Water Supply and Water Resources
Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
Singh, V. P. 1989. Hydrologic Systems: Vol. 11, Watershed Modeling. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Skjefstad, J. (2005). Environmental Effects From De-icing Chemicals on Green Areas Next to Runways: Experi-
ences at Oslo Airport, Norway. Pittsburgh, PA.
USACE. 2006a. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS v. 3.1.0: User’s Manual. Hydrologic Engineering
Center, Davis, CA. November.
USACE. 2006b. River Analysis System HEC-RAS v 4.0: User’s Manual. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.
November.
USDA. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical Release 55. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Washington, DC. June.
Wagoner, B., 2006, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Deicer Mass Balance Monitoring Data:
Detroit, MI
Williams, M., 2006, Baltimore-Washington International Airport Deicing Mass Balance Monitoring Data Set
(Permit compliance monitoring data set ed.)
Wool, T. A., R. B. Ambrose, J. L. Martin, and E. A. Comer. 2001. Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program
(WASP) Version 6.0: User’s Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 4, Atlanta, GA.
65


Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAF Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid

AC Advisory Circular
ACA Airport Carbon Accreditation
ADF Aircraft Deicing Fluid
ASR Alkyli-Silica Reactivity
AIP Airport Improvement Program
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAR Canadian Aviation Regulation
CBCO Carbon Brake Catalytic Oxidation
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act
CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CWA Clean Water Act
DO Dissolved oxygen
EG Ethylene Glycol
ELG Effluent Limitation Guidelines
ESA Endangered Species Act
FBO Fixed Base Operator
FPD Freezing-Point Depressants
IATA International Air Transport Association
MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC National Response Center
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PDM Pavement Deicing Material
PG Propylene Glycol
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RQ Reportable Quantity
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
Superfund Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
67

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TC Transport Canada
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC Total Organic Carbon
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
ISBN 978-0-309-48122-9
NON-PROFIT ORG.
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
90000
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
9 780309 481229

ACRP Report 14 Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices For Stormwater Management Systems, 2nd Edition (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACRP Report 14 Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices For Stormwater Management Systems, 2nd Edition (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25788 SHARE

Deicing Planning Guidelines and Practices for Stormwater

76 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Deicing

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 14

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 14, SECOND EDITION

ACRP PROJECT 02-71 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Chapter 2 Guidelines for Developing Integrated

33 Chapter 3 Guidelines for Selecting Individual Practices

62 Chapter 4 Deicing Fact Sheets

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Deicing Planning Guidelines

New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category.”

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ment techniques and technologies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Purpose and Objectives

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for Developing

Aircraft and Airfield Requirements for Deicing

Applicable FAA Regulations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for Developing Integrated Deicing Runoff Management Systems 7

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

SAE International Deicing Standards

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for Developing Integrated Deicing Runoff Management Systems 9

Typical Deicing Runoff Pollutants

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

BOD5 BOD20 (mg/L)

Polar Plus ADF 1.57 g O2/g

Polar Plus 63/37 0.90 g O2/g

Polar Plus 55/45 0.86 g O2/g

Polar Plus LT ADF 1.61 g O2/g

Polar Plus LT ADF 1.01 g O2/g

Polar Plus LT ADF 0.89 g O2/g

Octoflow EF PG Clariant 243150 1.044 — — — — — — —

Safewing MP I Eco PG Clariant 190933 1.0452 — — — — — — —

P180 PG LNT Solutions — 1.045 1.34 kgO2/kg — 31% biooxidation — — — —

DOW Chemical 1.29

DOW Chemical 1.29

DOW Chemical 1.29

UCAR PG DOW Chemical 1.045

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Guidelines for Developing Integrated Deicing Runoff Management Systems 11

Toxicity to Aquatic Chronic

LC50 6,350 LC50 6,825

6 Chapter 2 Guidelines for Developing Integrated